Purpose – Information verification is an important factor in commercial valuation practice.Valuers use their professional autonomy to decide on the level of verification required, thereby creating an opportunity for client-related judgement bias in valuation. The purpose of this paper is to assess the manifestation of client attachment risks in information verification. Design/methodology/approach – A case-based questionnaire was used to retrieve data from 290 commercial valuation professionals in the Netherlands, providing a 15 per cent response rate of the Dutch commercial valuation population. Descriptive and inferential statistics have been used to test research hypotheses involving relations between information verification and professional features that may indicate client attachment such as an executive job level and brokerage experience. Findings – The results reveal that valuers acting at partner level within their organisation obtain lower scores on information verification compared to lower-ranked valuers. Also, brokerage experience correlates negatively to information verification of valuation professionals. Both findings have statistical significance. Research limitations/implications – The results reflect valuers’ reasoning behaviour rather than actual behaviour. Replication of findings through experimental design will contribute to research validity. Practical implications – Maintaining close client contact in a competitive environment is important for business continuity yet may foster client attachment.The associated downside risks in valuation practice call for higher awareness of (subconscious) client influence and the development of attitudinal scepticism in valuer training programmes. Originality/value – This paper is one of the few that explore possible sources of valuer judgement bias by relating client-friendly valuer features to a key area of valuation i.e. information verification.
LINK
In the literature about web survey methodology, significant e orts have been made to understand the role of time-invariant factors (e.g. gender, education and marital status) in (non-)response mechanisms. Time-invariant factors alone, however, cannot account for most variations in (non-)responses, especially fluctuations of response rates over time. This observation inspires us to investigate the counterpart of time-invariant factors, namely time-varying factors and the potential role they play in web survey (non-)response. Specifically, we study the effects of time, weather and societal trends (derived from Google Trends data) on the daily (non-)response patterns of the 2016 and 2017 Dutch Health Surveys. Using discrete-time survival analysis, we find, among others, that weekends, holidays, pleasant weather, disease outbreaks and terrorism salience are associated with fewer responses. Furthermore, we show that using these variables alone achieves satisfactory prediction accuracy of both daily and cumulative response rates when the trained model is applied to future unseen data. This approach has the further benefit of requiring only non-personal contextual information and thus involving no privacy issues. We discuss the implications of the study for survey research and data collection.
The purpose of the research was the development of a questionnaire that can measure the behaviour of groups of students (for instance departments' cohorts) in Personal Information Management (PIM). Variables for the questionnaire were derived from the international literature on PIM. The questionnaire has been tested out on 79 students (last year before graduation) from four different departments of the Academy of ICT&Media at The Hague University of Applied Sciences. The students' responses were checked on consistency, item non response, desirability bias and information value of the results. All these criteria indicated that the questionnaire is an adequate tool for the assessment of PIM at an institutional level. The results that have been found for the four departments have not yet been discussed with the managers of the Academy and those of the individual departments. [De hier gepubliceerde versie is het 'accepted paper' van het origineel dat is gepubliceerd op www.springerlink.com . De officiële publicatie kan worden gedownload op http://www.springerlink.com/content/n0h3k71u85024xnt/]
![Causes of reporting bias: a theoretical framework [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]](https://publinova-harvester-content-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/thumbnails/files/previews/pdf/20240419021423483168.68f_a863_4e94_84cd_cf2a63540cea_18310_jenny_van_der_stee-thumbnail-400x300.png)
