PURPOSE: This study compares the match rate and positional accuracy of two geocoding methods: the popular geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1 and the Centrus GeoCoder for ArcGIS. METHODS: We first geocoded 11,016 Texas addresses in a case-control study using both methods and obtained the match rate of each method. We then randomly selected 200 addresses from those geocoded by using both methods and obtained geographic coordinates of the 200 addresses by using a global positioning system (GPS) device. Of the 200 addresses, 110 were case maternal residence addresses and 90 were control maternal residence addresses. These GPS-surveyed coordinates were used as the "true" coordinates to calculate positional errors of geocoded locations. We used Wilcoxon signed rank test to evaluate whether differences in positional errors from the two methods were statistically significantly different from zero. In addition, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the two methods for classifying maternal addresses within 1500 m of toxic release inventory facilities when distance is used as a proxy of exposure. RESULTS: The match rate of the Centrus GeoCoder was more than 10% greater than that of the geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1. Positional errors with the Centrus GeoCoder were less than those of the geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1, and this difference was statistically significant. Sensitivity and specificity of the two methods are similar. CONCLUSIONS: Centrus GeoCoder for ArcGIS for geocoding gives greater match rates than the geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1. Although the Centrus GeoCoder has better positional accuracy, both methods give similar results in classifying maternal addresses within 1500 m of toxic release inventory facilities when distance is used as a proxy of exposure.
PURPOSE: This study compares the match rate and positional accuracy of two geocoding methods: the popular geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1 and the Centrus GeoCoder for ArcGIS. METHODS: We first geocoded 11,016 Texas addresses in a case-control study using both methods and obtained the match rate of each method. We then randomly selected 200 addresses from those geocoded by using both methods and obtained geographic coordinates of the 200 addresses by using a global positioning system (GPS) device. Of the 200 addresses, 110 were case maternal residence addresses and 90 were control maternal residence addresses. These GPS-surveyed coordinates were used as the "true" coordinates to calculate positional errors of geocoded locations. We used Wilcoxon signed rank test to evaluate whether differences in positional errors from the two methods were statistically significantly different from zero. In addition, we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the two methods for classifying maternal addresses within 1500 m of toxic release inventory facilities when distance is used as a proxy of exposure. RESULTS: The match rate of the Centrus GeoCoder was more than 10% greater than that of the geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1. Positional errors with the Centrus GeoCoder were less than those of the geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1, and this difference was statistically significant. Sensitivity and specificity of the two methods are similar. CONCLUSIONS: Centrus GeoCoder for ArcGIS for geocoding gives greater match rates than the geocoding tool in ArcGIS 9.1. Although the Centrus GeoCoder has better positional accuracy, both methods give similar results in classifying maternal addresses within 1500 m of toxic release inventory facilities when distance is used as a proxy of exposure.