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 (20)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Little, R. J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kessler, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Little, R. J. A.
Right arrow Articles by Kessler, R. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 146, No. 5: 439-449
Copyright © 1997 by The Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health

research-article

Assessment of Weighting Methodology for the National Comorbidity Survey

R. J. A. Little1,2, S. Lewitzky1,2, S. Heeringa1,2, J. Lepkowski1,2 and R. C. Kessler2

1Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI
2Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI

Reprint requests to Dr. Roderick J. Little, University of Michigan, 1420 Washington Heights, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2029

The authors studied weighting adjustments for the National Comorbidity Survey (1990–1992), a large-scale national epidemiologic investigation of the prevalence, risk factors, and consequences of psychiatric morbidity and comorbidity in the United States. Weighting adjustments for differential selection within households, new construction, unit nonresponse, and poststratification were examined separately and in combination. Specific issues addressed included the magnitude of the bias incurred from ignoring the weights, the added variance from weighting and how well this was predicted by simple formulae, and the performance of methods for trimming the weights. Weights had quite modest effects on point estimates of prevalences but resulted in major increases in variance unless trimmed. The weights after trimming and poststratification appeared to work well. It is suggested that the added variance from weighting be carefully monitored in similar surveys. Alternatives to the use of trimming for controlling variance are worth exploring.

epidemiologic methods; mental health; selection bias; study design; weighting


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
 Public Opin QHome page
R. M. Groves
Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys
Public Opin Q, January 1, 2006; 70(5): 646 - 675.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Gen PsychiatryHome page
R. Mojtabai, M. Olfson, and D. Mechanic
Perceived Need and Help-Seeking in Adults With Mood, Anxiety, or Substance Use Disorders
Arch Gen Psychiatry, January 1, 2002; 59(1): 77 - 84.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 American Behavioral ScientistHome page
G. C. SUMNER, R. M. ANDERSEN, S. L. WENZEL, and L. GELBERG
Weighting for Period Perspective in Samples of the Homeless
American Behavioral Scientist, September 1, 2001; 45(1): 80 - 104.
[Abstract] [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.