title: Inaccuracy in health research news: a typology and predictions of scientists' perceptions of the accuracy of research news.
abstract: This article introduces an integrated inaccuracy typology to explore the prevalence of inaccurate news coverage of health research. This typology suggests that errors, omissions, and misinterpretations are three common types of inaccuracy; errors and omissions are objective, whereas misinterpretations are subjective. Objective inaccuracy involves errors and omissions in describing the background or substantive information about the research, such as how, when, where, and on whom research was conducted. Subjective inaccuracy entails misinterpretations as a result of a lack of expertise among journalists (e.g., misstating facts, errors in inferences, offering speculations as facts) or media's interest in profits (e.g., overemphasis on unique findings, overgeneralizations of findings, shifting emphases). For this study, coders analyzed objective inaccuracy, while scientists rated subjective inaccuracy. In turn, it identifies what can account for the variance in scientists' perceptions of inaccuracy in news articles citing their research. Objective and subjective inaccuracy offer significant predictors. Of the different types of objective inaccuracy, omissions of research methods represent a significant factor, whereas of the types of subjective inaccuracy, errors in inferences, overemphasis on uniqueness, and overgeneralizations of findings are all significant predictors.
authors.affiliation: a Department of Advertising , National Chengchi University , Taipei , Taiwan.
authors.forename: Chingching
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Chang
mesh_terms: D001290:Attitude; D035843:Biomedical Research; D006801:Humans; D018156:Journalism, Medical / Q000592:standards*; D012108:Research Personnel / Q000523:psychology*