TY - JOUR
T1 - Error in smoking measures
T2 - Effects of intervention on relations of cotinine and carbon monoxide to self-reported smoking
AU - Murray, R. P.
AU - Connett, J. E.
AU - Lauger, G. G.
AU - Voelker, H. T.
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2018 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 1993
Y1 - 1993
N2 - Objectives. Sources of measurement error in assessing smoking status are examined. Methods. The Lung Health Study, a randomized trial in 10 clinical centers, includes 3923 participants in a smoking cessation program and 1964 usual care participants. Smoking at first annual follow-up was assessed by salivary cotinine, expired air carbon monoxide, and self-report. Each of these measures is known to contain some error. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by comparing a biochemical measure with self-report to produce an undifferentiated estimate of error. Classification error rates due to imprecision of the biochemical measures and to the error in self-report were estimated separately. Results. For cotinine compared with self-report, the sensitivity was 99.0% and the specificity 91.5%. For carbon monoxide compared with self-report, the sensitivity was 93.7% and the specificity 87.2%. The classification error attributed to self-report, estimated by comparing the results from intervention and control groups, was associated with the responses of 3% and 5% of participants, indicating a small but significant bias toward a socially desirable response. Conclusions. In absolute terms in these data, both types of error were small.
AB - Objectives. Sources of measurement error in assessing smoking status are examined. Methods. The Lung Health Study, a randomized trial in 10 clinical centers, includes 3923 participants in a smoking cessation program and 1964 usual care participants. Smoking at first annual follow-up was assessed by salivary cotinine, expired air carbon monoxide, and self-report. Each of these measures is known to contain some error. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by comparing a biochemical measure with self-report to produce an undifferentiated estimate of error. Classification error rates due to imprecision of the biochemical measures and to the error in self-report were estimated separately. Results. For cotinine compared with self-report, the sensitivity was 99.0% and the specificity 91.5%. For carbon monoxide compared with self-report, the sensitivity was 93.7% and the specificity 87.2%. The classification error attributed to self-report, estimated by comparing the results from intervention and control groups, was associated with the responses of 3% and 5% of participants, indicating a small but significant bias toward a socially desirable response. Conclusions. In absolute terms in these data, both types of error were small.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027180321&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027180321&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2105/AJPH.83.9.1251
DO - 10.2105/AJPH.83.9.1251
M3 - Article
C2 - 8363000
AN - SCOPUS:0027180321
SN - 0090-0036
VL - 83
SP - 1251
EP - 1257
JO - American journal of public health
JF - American journal of public health
IS - 9
ER -