Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
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 (9)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Macarthur, C.
Right arrow Articles by Pless, I. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Macarthur, C.
Right arrow Articles by Pless, I. B.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 145, No. 9: 834-841
Copyright © 1997 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health


other

Reliability and Validity of Proxy Respondent Information about Childhood Injury: An Assessment of a Canadian Surveillance System

Colin Macarthur1,, Geoffrey Dougherty2 and I. Barry Pless2

1Departments of Community Health Sciences and Paediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada
2Departments of Paediatrics and Epidemiology and Btostatis-tics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Reprint requests to Dr. Colin Macarthur, Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Hearth Sciences Center, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 4N1.

The reliability and validity of proxy respondent information in the Canadian Hospitals Injury Reporting and Prevention Program surveillance system was assessed. A standardized form was used to collect data on injury date, location, context (activity at the time), breakdown factor (what went wrong), mechanism, product involvement, safety precaution use, and motor vehicle involvement. Tine test-retest method determined reliability, with the kappa coefficient quantifying agreement between respondent information provided in the emergency department and later during a telephone interview. Of 421 eligible respondents, 325 (77%) completed the telephone interview, with a median time to interview of 33 hours (range 24–70 hours). Agreement was high for all items; kappa coefficients ranged from 0.79 (substantial agreement) to 1.00 (perfect agreement). Reliability was not significantly modified by respondent view of the injury event, age of the child, language of the form, or level of respondent education. Validity was determined by measuring the agreement between respondent information and that provided by an independent witness. Witness information was considered to represent the truth. Of the 140 injury events selected, 92 (66%) had the form completed by both the original respondent and an independent witness. Kappa coefficients were greater than 0.65 for all but one item (safety precaution use), and the positive predictive value of respondent information for item categories whose prevalence was ≥0.25 ranged from 0.82 to 0.95. The authors conclude that proxy respondent data on childhood injury are both reliable and valid. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 145: 834–41.

accidents; child; population surveillance; reproducibility of results


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
Inj. Prev.Home page
B. Pless
Surveillance alone is not the answer
Inj. Prev., August 1, 2008; 14(4): 220 - 222.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Asia Pac J Public HealthHome page
N. Tan, A. Ang, D. Heng, J. Chen, and H. Wong
Evaluation of Playground Injuries based on ICD, E codes, International Classification of External Cause of Injury codes (ICECI), and Abbreviated Injury Scale coding systems
Asia Pac J Public Health, March 1, 2007; 19(1): 18 - 27.
[PDF]


Home page
Inj. Prev.Home page
G S Smith, G S Sorock, H M Wellman, T K Courtney, and G S Pransky
Blurring the distinctions between on and off the job injuries: similarities and differences in circumstances.
Inj. Prev., August 1, 2006; 12(4): 236 - 241.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
PediatricsHome page
A. Macpherson, L. Rothman, and A. Howard
Body-Checking Rules and Childhood Injuries in Ice Hockey
Pediatrics, February 1, 2006; 117(2): e143 - e147.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Inj. Prev.Home page
M Sznajder, B Chevallier, J Yacoubovitch, P Aegerter, and B Auvert
Implementation of a system of surveillance of childhood injuries involved in a Safe Community program: the example of Boulogne-Billancourt (France)
Inj. Prev., December 1, 2002; 8(4): 330 - 331.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Int J EpidemiolHome page
E Bartfay and A Donner
The effect of collapsing multinomial data when assessing agreement
Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2000; 29(6): 1070 - 1075.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Inj. Prev.Home page
P A Leonard, T F Beattie, and D R Gorman
Under representation of morbidity from paediatric bicycle accidents by official statistics--a need for data collection in the accident and emergency department
Inj. Prev., December 1, 1999; 5(4): 303 - 304.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Inj. Prev.Home page
S. G Mackenzie and I. B. Pless
CHIRPP: Canada's principal injury surveillance program
Inj. Prev., September 1, 1999; 5(3): 208 - 213.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Inj. Prev.Home page
C. Macarthur and I. B. Pless
Sensitivity and representativeness of a childhood injury surveillance system
Inj. Prev., September 1, 1999; 5(3): 214 - 216.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Arch Pediatr Adolesc MedHome page
D. R. Durbin, F. K. Winston, S. M. Applegate, E. K. Moll, and J. H. Holmes
Development and Validation of the Injury Severity Assessment Survey/Parent Report: A New Injury Severity Assessment Survey
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, April 1, 1999; 153(4): 404 - 408.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Inj. Prev.Home page
Journal Citations
Inj. Prev., March 1, 1998; 4(1): 81 - 83.
[Full Text] [PDF]



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.