American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access originally published online on February 28, 2007
American Journal of Epidemiology 2007 165(8):868-871; doi:10.1093/aje/kwm038
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Invited Commentary: Beyond the Metrics for Measuring Neighborhood Effects
1 Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC
2 National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Human Studies Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
Correspondence to Dr. Lynne C. Messer, NHEERL, Human Studies Division, Environmental Protection Agency, MD 58A, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 (e-mail: lmesser{at}email.unc.edu).
Received for publication October 24, 2006. Accepted for publication November 7, 2006.
The "neighborhood effects" literature, as currently constructed in epidemiology, would benefit from critical attention to the following four issues: 1) use of appropriate measurement tools and methods for neighborhood environments; 2) theoretical or conceptual guidance as to the aspects of residential environments most salient to human health (both within and across health endpoints); 3) the scale on which investigators measure neighborhood environments to best correspond to meaningful neighborhood boundaries and relevant neighborhood exposures; and 4) those selection and structural features that confound investigators' capacity to draw causal inferences from neighborhood environments to human health. In this issue of the Journal, Mujahid et al. (Am J Epidemiol 2007;165:858–867) report on the psychometric and ecometric results of their neighborhood scale testing. By providing a more rigorous approach to testing of neighborhood-attribute measurement tools, they make an important contribution to the literature. Also noteworthy is their explicit use of a conceptual model, which may facilitate the development of more meaningful area-level measures. Unfortunately, while Mujahid et al. had the capacity to consider spatially relevant measures, based on prior research and their conceptual model, they relied exclusively on aggregated census units. Hopefully, the scale issue will be addressed more thoroughly in future work. Clearly, Mujahid et al. have made progress in addressing how, and to a lesser extent what, to measure when researchers estimate neighborhood effects. But equally clearly, important work remains to be done.
censuses; data collection; epidemiologic methods; psychometrics; residence characteristics; social class; social environment
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Related articles in Am. J. Epidemiol.:
- Assessing the Measurement Properties of Neighborhood Scales: From Psychometrics to Ecometrics
- Mahasin S. Mujahid, Ana V. Diez Roux, Jeffrey D. Morenoff, and Trivellore Raghunathan
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2007 165: 858-867.[Abstract] [FREE Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. L. Pruitt, M. J. Shim, P. D. Mullen, S. W. Vernon, and B. C. Amick III Association of Area Socioeconomic Status and Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., October 1, 2009; 18(10): 2579 - 2599. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. K. Chow, K. Lock, K. Teo, S. Subramanian, M. McKee, and S. Yusuf Environmental and societal influences acting on cardiovascular risk factors and disease at a population level: a review Int. J. Epidemiol., March 4, 2009; (2009) dyn258v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. V. Diez Roux, M. S. Mujahid, J. D. Morenoff, and T. Raghunathan Mujahid et al. Respond to "Beyond the Metrics for Measuring Neighborhood Effects" Am. J. Epidemiol., April 15, 2007; 165(8): 872 - 873. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|