Literature DB >> 17096201

Reflections on accuracy.

Blasé Gambino1.   

Abstract

The difference between test accuracy and predictive accuracy is presented and defined. The failure to distinguish between these two types of measures is shown to have led to a misguided debate over the interpretation of prevalence estimates. The distinction between test accuracy defined as sensitivity and specificity, and predictive accuracy defined as positive and negative predictive value is shown to reflect the choice of the denominator used to calculate true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative rates. It is further shown that any instrument will tend to overestimate prevalence in low base rate populations and underestimate it in those populations where prevalence is high. The implications of these observations are then discussed in terms of the need to define diagnostic thresholds that have clinical and policy relevance.

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17096201     DOI: 10.1007/s10899-006-9025-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gambl Stud        ISSN: 1050-5350


  19 in total

1.  Methods for evaluating the performance of diagnostic tests in the absence of a gold standard: a latent class model approach.

Authors:  Elizabeth S Garrett; William W Eaton; Scott Zeger
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2002-05-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Method, method: who's got the method? What can we know about the number of compulsive gamblers?

Authors:  B Gambino
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  1997

3.  Definition of rates: some remarks on their use and misuse.

Authors:  R C Elandt-Johnson
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1975-10       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  A review of two measures of pathological gambling in the United States.

Authors:  R A Volberg; S M Banks
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  1990-06

5.  Estimating the extent and degree of Gambling related problems in the Australian population: A national survey.

Authors:  M G Dickerson; E Baron; S M Hong; D Cottrell
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  1996-06

6.  The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): a new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers.

Authors:  H R Lesieur; S B Blume
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  1987-09       Impact factor: 18.112

7.  Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good.

Authors:  M C Reid; M S Lachs; A R Feinstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995 Aug 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Estimating the prevalence of disordered gambling behavior in the United States and Canada: a research synthesis.

Authors:  H J Shaffer; M N Hall; J Vander Bilt
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 9.308

9.  Epidemiology: reflections on testing the validity of psychiatric interviews.

Authors:  L N Robins
Journal:  Arch Gen Psychiatry       Date:  1985-09

10.  Gambling participation in the U.S.--results from a national survey.

Authors:  John W Welte; Grace M Barnes; William F Wieczorek; Marie-Cecile Tidwell; John Parker
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2002
View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  The validation of screening tests: meet the new screen same as the old screen?

Authors:  Blase Gambino
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2012-12

2.  Setting criterion thresholds for estimating prevalence: what is being validated?

Authors:  Blase Gambino
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2014-09

3.  Test Performance Variation Between Settings and Populations.

Authors:  Blase Gambino
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2018-12

4.  Reliability, Validity, and Classification Accuracy of the DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for Gambling Disorder and Comparison to DSM-IV.

Authors:  Randy Stinchfield; John McCready; Nigel E Turner; Susana Jimenez-Murcia; Nancy M Petry; Jon Grant; John Welte; Heather Chapman; Ken C Winters
Journal:  J Gambl Stud       Date:  2016-09
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.