An Evaluation of Data Entry Error and Proofing Methods for Fisheries Data

Reducing data entry error has the potential to improve estimates produced by fisheries practitioners. However, the frequencies of data entry error and evaluations of the recommended protocols for dealing with data entry error have rarely been presented in fisheries-related literature. The objectives of our study were to determine the magnitude of data entry error in a typical fisheries data set, what kind of errors Occurred most often. and how those errors might affect commonly generated estimates of abundance, size structure, and species richness. We evaluated four methods of data entry into proofing: (1) a single entry, (2) read-aloud proofing.(3)double-entry proofing, and (4) field use of it personal digital assistant (PDA). We determined the quality of the data after the use of each method and compared common fisheries estimates derived front each with estimates generated front standardized data. Total error discovered in the data set averaged 0.79 +/- 0.22 % (mean +/- SD) and consisted of 44.1% field-related error and 55.9% data entry errors. We found thin numbers of known errors remaining in the data were significantly lower when proofing, methods were ticked. Abundance estimates derived front it single data entry were significantly different front those derived front data thin had undergone proofing. However, the magnitude of the difference (2.22%) was less than our limit of acceptable error and Far less than the mean confidence interval of the estimates themselves (60.91%). Further, no differences were detected in mark-recapture abundance estimates, estimates of size, or estimates of species richness. This Suggests thin for most common fisheries estimates, a single entry of data or single, entry using a PDA is sufficient. We subsequently found thin the use of automated en-or checking helped to ensure an acceptable level of data quality without the time and expense of more traditional error-checking methods.