OBJECTIVE: This study examined the validity of child-reported exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) and investigated factors, such as child's age, which might affect accuracy of recall. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Participants were drawn from a nonprobability sample of 380 families who completed baseline assessment as part of a randomized trial of an SHS reduction intervention conducted in an urban setting in Southern California. Parents and children (aged 8-13 years) retrospectively reported child's exposure to SHS using timeline followback methodology; reports were compared with child's urine cotinine. RESULTS: Validity coefficients for parents and children were comparable (r=0.58 vs. r=0.53), but parents recalled three times more exposure than children (2.2 vs. 0.8 cigarettes per day; P<0.001). Regression models predicting cotinine indicated that including child in addition to parent reports resulted in better prediction than either alone. CONCLUSION: When there is a choice, parent reports are preferable over child reports because of decreased underreporting. However, child-reported SHS exposure had adequate validity (r>0.50) and might be appropriate in some situations. Researchers might consider collecting both parent and child reports because each made a unique contribution to the prediction of cotinine. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the validity of child-reported exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) and investigated factors, such as child's age, which might affect accuracy of recall. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:Participants were drawn from a nonprobability sample of 380 families who completed baseline assessment as part of a randomized trial of an SHS reduction intervention conducted in an urban setting in Southern California. Parents and children (aged 8-13 years) retrospectively reported child's exposure to SHS using timeline followback methodology; reports were compared with child's urine cotinine. RESULTS: Validity coefficients for parents and children were comparable (r=0.58 vs. r=0.53), but parents recalled three times more exposure than children (2.2 vs. 0.8 cigarettes per day; P<0.001). Regression models predicting cotinine indicated that including child in addition to parent reports resulted in better prediction than either alone. CONCLUSION: When there is a choice, parent reports are preferable over child reports because of decreased underreporting. However, child-reported SHS exposure had adequate validity (r>0.50) and might be appropriate in some situations. Researchers might consider collecting both parent and child reports because each made a unique contribution to the prediction of cotinine. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: G E Matt; D R Wahlgren; M F Hovell; J M Zakarian; J T Bernert; S B Meltzer; J L Pirkle; S Caudill Journal: Tob Control Date: 1999 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: F Forastiere; N Agabiti; V Dell'Orco; R Pistelli; G M Corbo; G Brancato; R Pacifici; P Zuccaro; C A Perucci Journal: Arch Environ Health Date: 1993 Jul-Aug
Authors: J A Emerson; M F Hovell; S B Meltzer; J M Zakarian; C R Hofstetter; D R Wahlgren; B P Leaderer; E O Meltzer Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: G E Matt; P J E Quintana; M F Hovell; J T Bernert; S Song; N Novianti; T Juarez; J Floro; C Gehrman; M Garcia; S Larson Journal: Tob Control Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 7.552
Authors: Goodarz Danaei; Eric L Ding; Dariush Mozaffarian; Ben Taylor; Jürgen Rehm; Christopher J L Murray; Majid Ezzati Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2009-04-28 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Ding Ding; Dennis R Wahlgren; Sandy Liles; Georg E Matt; McKenzie Oliver; Jennifer A Jones; Melbourne F Hovell Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Christina N Lessov-Schlaggar; Dennis R Wahlgren; Sandy Liles; Ming Ji; Suzanne C Hughes; Jonathan P Winickoff; Jennifer A Jones; Gary E Swan; Melbourne F Hovell Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2011-07-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Melbourne F Hovell; Dennis R Wahlgren; Sandy Liles; Jennifer A Jones; Suzanne C Hughes; Georg E Matt; Ming Ji; Christina N Lessov-Schlaggar; Gary E Swan; Dale Chatfield; Ding Ding Journal: Chest Date: 2011-04-07 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Ding Ding; Dennis R Wahlgren; Sandy Liles; Jennifer A Jones; Suzanne C Hughes; Melbourne F Hovell Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 3.913