Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (38)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by HOOK, E. B.
Right arrow Articles by REGAL, R. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by HOOK, E. B.
Right arrow Articles by REGAL, R. R.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 116, No. 1: 168-176
Copyright © 1982 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health


research-article

VALIDITY OF BERNOULLI CENSUS, LOG-LINEAR, AND TRUNCATED BINOMIAL MODELS FOR CORRECTING FOR UNDERESTIMATES IN PREVALENCE STUDIES

ERNEST B. HOOK1 and RONALD R. REGAL2

1Birth Defects Institute, Division of Laboratories and Research, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY and Department of Pediatrics, Albany Medical College Albany, NY
2Division of Laboratories and Research, New York State Department of Health, Albany, NY and Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Minnesota Duluth, MN

Most prevalence studies using health records are likely to miss some affected cases and thus be biased to underestimates. An adjustment for underascertainment is often necessary, but to our knowledge no validity studies of proposed methods have been done. Using a data set on Down syndrome which gives distributions by five different sources, the number listed in, say source X, i.e., the known "prevalence" (KP) of those in X, was compared with estimates of this prevalence derived (using only information on the intersections of X with other sources) by using several different models: 1) truncated ß-binomial or Skellam (TS); 2) truncated binomial (TB); 3) Bernoulli census-independent sources (IS); 4) Bernoulli census-merged sources (MS); and 5) log-linear (LL). Up to three of the following assumptions are required by at least one of the models: (I) for each specific source X, each case in the population has the same probability of being listed by that source; (II) there is no variation between sources in these probabilities, i.e., the ascertainment probability is the same for all sources; and (III) the sources are independent. The TB model makes all three assumptions, the TS model makes assumptions two and three, the IS model makes assumptions one and three, and the MS and LL models make only the first assumption. Estimates derived from the TS model must always be greater than or equal to those from the TB model, and these in turn must be greater than or equal to those from the IS model. No such systematic relationship holds for estimates from the MS or LL models with regard to the others. Results by sources were mental hygiene records: KP = 263, estimates (as % of KP) were TS = 85%, TB = 84%, IS = 79%, MS = 81%, LL = 87%schools;KP = 252,TS =% 108%,TB = 95%, IS = 90%, MS = 95%, LL = 104%; hospital records: KP = 215,TS = 108%,TB = 108%, IS = 102%, MS = 105%, LL = 97%;obstetrical records: KP = 183, TS = 110%, TB = 109%, IS = 106%, MS = 121%, LL = 103%. (Department of Health Records: KP = 36, no estimates made.) The estimates derived from the log-linear models had in general the best agreement wtth the values of the known prevalences. In addition, for each source 95% confidence intervals include the known prevalences. The truncated ß-binomial (Skellam) model (TS) was the only other model for which all confidence Intervals Include the known prevalences, but these intervals are so wide and so asymmetric around the known prevalences as to render this approach much less attractive. Thus, In general, the log-linear model, of those considered, appears preferable for prevalence estimation. The analyses presented here Illustrate the need for and value of collection and reporting of data by all source Intersections In multiple source Investigations.

Down's syndrome; prevalence studies; survey methods


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
P. Bernillon, L. Lievre, J. Pillonel, A. Laporte, and D. Costagliola
Record-linkage between two anonymous databases for a capture-recapture estimation of underreporting of AIDS cases: France 1990-1993
Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2000; 29(1): 168 - 174.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch. Dis. Child.Home page
D P Warner, P A McKinney, G R Law, and H J Bodansky
Mortality and diabetes from a population based register in Yorkshire 1978-93
Arch. Dis. Child., May 1, 1998; 78(5): 435 - 438.
[Abstract] [Full Text]


Home page
Arch. Dis. Child.Home page
A Staines, S Hanif, S Ahmed, P A McKinney, S Shera, and H J Bodansky
Incidence of insulin dependent diabetes mellitus in Karachi, Pakistan
Arch. Dis. Child., February 1, 1997; 76(2): 121 - 123.
[Abstract] [Full Text]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.