Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
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 ISI Web of Science
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 (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by White, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by White, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Am J Epidemiol 2003; 157:380-387.
Copyright © 2003 by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

REVIEW AND COMMENTARY

Design and Interpretation of Studies of Differential Exposure Measurement Error

Emily White

From the Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington, and Cancer Prevention Research Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.

Differential exposure measurement error can have more adverse effects on estimates of exposure-disease associations than nondifferential measurement error, yet relatively little has been written about the design and interpretation of validity and reliability studies to assess differential measurement error. In this paper, a simple approximate equation is given for the effect of differential measurement error in a continuous exposure measure on the bias in the odds ratio. From this, it is shown that two parameters need to be estimated in validity/reliability studies in order to interpret the results in terms of the bias in the odds ratio in an epidemiologic study that will use the measure. The first is the correlation between the mismeasured and true exposure. The second is the differential bias (difference between cases and controls in the difference between mean measured and true exposure) relative to the true difference in exposure between cases and controls. It is shown that this latter parameter can be estimated in a method comparison study if one has a comparison measure that is unbiased or has nondifferential bias, so a perfect criterion measure is not needed. Researchers should consider measuring and reporting this parameter in validity/reliability studies when feasible.

epidemiologic methods; measurement error; reliability; validity

Abbreviations: Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; FFQ, food frequency questionnaire.


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
M. Leu, K. Czene, and M. Reilly
Bias correction of estimates of familial risk from population-based cohort studies
Int. J. Epidemiol., October 13, 2009; (2009) dyp304v1.
[Abstract] [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.