Reply to both of these 150-200 words 1- Editing The data should get a thorough editing. For a small study, the use of a single editor produces maximum consistency. In large studies, editing tasks should be allocated so that each editor deals with one entire section. The latter approach will not identify inconsistencies between answers in different sections The problem can be handled by identifying questions in different sections that might point to inconsistency and then having one editor check them. Sometimes it is obvious that an entry is incorrect–for example, when data clearly specify time in days when it was requested in weeks, or is entered in the wrong place. When replies are inappropriate or missing, the editor can sometimes detect the proper answer by reviewing the other information in the data set. This practice should be limited to the few cases where the correct answer is obvious. It is better to contact the respondent for correct information, if time and budget allow. Another alternative is for the editor to strike out the answer if it is inappropriate. Here, an editing entry of “no answer” or “unknown” is called for. Editing can also help detect fake interviews. This “armchair interviewing” is difficult to spot, but the editor is in the best position to do so. One approach is to check responses to open-ended questions, which are the most difficult to fake. Distinctive response patterns in other questions will often emerge if data falsification is occurring. To uncover this, the editor must analyze as a set the instruments used by each interviewer. Here are some useful rules to guide editors in their work: ¨ Be familiar with instructions given to interviewers and coders. ¨ Do not destroy, erase, or make illegible the original entry by the interviewer.
