Randomized controlled trial examining expectancy effects on the accuracy of weight measurement

G. R. Dutton, K. R. Fontaine, A. S. Alcorn, J. Dawson, P. L. Capers, D. B. Allison

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Researchers and participants' expectations can influence treatment response. Less is known about the effects of researchers' expectations on the accuracy of data collection in the context of a weight loss trial.

METHODS: Student raters (N = 58; age = 20.1 ± 2.3 years) were recruited to weigh individuals who they thought were completing a 12-month weight loss trial, although these 'participants' were actually standardized patients (SPs) playing these roles. Prior to data collection, student raters were provided information suggesting that the tested treatment had been effective. Each student rater received a list of 9-10 'participants' to weigh. While the list identified each person as 'treatment' or 'control', this assignment was at random, which allowed us to examine the effects of non-blinding and expectancy manipulation on weight measurement accuracy. We hypothesized that raters would record the weights of 'treatment participants' as lower than those of 'control participants'.

RESULTS: Contrary to our hypothesis, raters recorded weights that were 0.293 kg heavier when weighing 'treatment' vs. 'control' SPs, although this difference was not significant (P = 0.175).

CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found no evidence that manipulating expectancies about treatment efficacy or not blinding raters biased measurements. Future work should examine other biases which may be created by not blinding research staff who implement weight loss trials as well as the participants in those trials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)38-41
Number of pages4
JournalClinical obesity
Volume5
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Randomized Controlled Trials
Weights and Measures
Weight Loss
Students
Research Personnel
Therapeutics
Research

Keywords

  • Expectancy effect
  • measurement
  • randomized controlled trial
  • weight

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Dutton, G. R., Fontaine, K. R., Alcorn, A. S., Dawson, J., Capers, P. L., & Allison, D. B. (2015). Randomized controlled trial examining expectancy effects on the accuracy of weight measurement. Clinical obesity, 5(1), 38-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12083

Randomized controlled trial examining expectancy effects on the accuracy of weight measurement. / Dutton, G. R.; Fontaine, K. R.; Alcorn, A. S.; Dawson, J.; Capers, P. L.; Allison, D. B.

In: Clinical obesity, Vol. 5, No. 1, 01.02.2015, p. 38-41.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dutton, GR, Fontaine, KR, Alcorn, AS, Dawson, J, Capers, PL & Allison, DB 2015, 'Randomized controlled trial examining expectancy effects on the accuracy of weight measurement', Clinical obesity, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 38-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/cob.12083
Dutton, G. R. ; Fontaine, K. R. ; Alcorn, A. S. ; Dawson, J. ; Capers, P. L. ; Allison, D. B. / Randomized controlled trial examining expectancy effects on the accuracy of weight measurement. In: Clinical obesity. 2015 ; Vol. 5, No. 1. pp. 38-41.
@article{50b0eaf6dccc4f4f9a5d657d1f277867,
title = "Randomized controlled trial examining expectancy effects on the accuracy of weight measurement",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Researchers and participants' expectations can influence treatment response. Less is known about the effects of researchers' expectations on the accuracy of data collection in the context of a weight loss trial.METHODS: Student raters (N = 58; age = 20.1 ± 2.3 years) were recruited to weigh individuals who they thought were completing a 12-month weight loss trial, although these 'participants' were actually standardized patients (SPs) playing these roles. Prior to data collection, student raters were provided information suggesting that the tested treatment had been effective. Each student rater received a list of 9-10 'participants' to weigh. While the list identified each person as 'treatment' or 'control', this assignment was at random, which allowed us to examine the effects of non-blinding and expectancy manipulation on weight measurement accuracy. We hypothesized that raters would record the weights of 'treatment participants' as lower than those of 'control participants'.RESULTS: Contrary to our hypothesis, raters recorded weights that were 0.293 kg heavier when weighing 'treatment' vs. 'control' SPs, although this difference was not significant (P = 0.175).CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found no evidence that manipulating expectancies about treatment efficacy or not blinding raters biased measurements. Future work should examine other biases which may be created by not blinding research staff who implement weight loss trials as well as the participants in those trials.",
keywords = "Expectancy effect, measurement, randomized controlled trial, weight",
author = "Dutton, {G. R.} and Fontaine, {K. R.} and Alcorn, {A. S.} and J. Dawson and Capers, {P. L.} and Allison, {D. B.}",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/cob.12083",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "38--41",
journal = "Clinical obesity",
issn = "1758-8103",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Randomized controlled trial examining expectancy effects on the accuracy of weight measurement

AU - Dutton, G. R.

AU - Fontaine, K. R.

AU - Alcorn, A. S.

AU - Dawson, J.

AU - Capers, P. L.

AU - Allison, D. B.

PY - 2015/2/1

Y1 - 2015/2/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Researchers and participants' expectations can influence treatment response. Less is known about the effects of researchers' expectations on the accuracy of data collection in the context of a weight loss trial.METHODS: Student raters (N = 58; age = 20.1 ± 2.3 years) were recruited to weigh individuals who they thought were completing a 12-month weight loss trial, although these 'participants' were actually standardized patients (SPs) playing these roles. Prior to data collection, student raters were provided information suggesting that the tested treatment had been effective. Each student rater received a list of 9-10 'participants' to weigh. While the list identified each person as 'treatment' or 'control', this assignment was at random, which allowed us to examine the effects of non-blinding and expectancy manipulation on weight measurement accuracy. We hypothesized that raters would record the weights of 'treatment participants' as lower than those of 'control participants'.RESULTS: Contrary to our hypothesis, raters recorded weights that were 0.293 kg heavier when weighing 'treatment' vs. 'control' SPs, although this difference was not significant (P = 0.175).CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found no evidence that manipulating expectancies about treatment efficacy or not blinding raters biased measurements. Future work should examine other biases which may be created by not blinding research staff who implement weight loss trials as well as the participants in those trials.

AB - BACKGROUND: Researchers and participants' expectations can influence treatment response. Less is known about the effects of researchers' expectations on the accuracy of data collection in the context of a weight loss trial.METHODS: Student raters (N = 58; age = 20.1 ± 2.3 years) were recruited to weigh individuals who they thought were completing a 12-month weight loss trial, although these 'participants' were actually standardized patients (SPs) playing these roles. Prior to data collection, student raters were provided information suggesting that the tested treatment had been effective. Each student rater received a list of 9-10 'participants' to weigh. While the list identified each person as 'treatment' or 'control', this assignment was at random, which allowed us to examine the effects of non-blinding and expectancy manipulation on weight measurement accuracy. We hypothesized that raters would record the weights of 'treatment participants' as lower than those of 'control participants'.RESULTS: Contrary to our hypothesis, raters recorded weights that were 0.293 kg heavier when weighing 'treatment' vs. 'control' SPs, although this difference was not significant (P = 0.175).CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found no evidence that manipulating expectancies about treatment efficacy or not blinding raters biased measurements. Future work should examine other biases which may be created by not blinding research staff who implement weight loss trials as well as the participants in those trials.

KW - Expectancy effect

KW - measurement

KW - randomized controlled trial

KW - weight

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84986268156&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84986268156&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/cob.12083

DO - 10.1111/cob.12083

M3 - Article

C2 - 25530148

VL - 5

SP - 38

EP - 41

JO - Clinical obesity

JF - Clinical obesity

SN - 1758-8103

IS - 1

ER -