Mary Beth Terry1, Mandy Goldberg2, Sarah Schechter3, Lauren C Houghton2, Melissa L White2, Karen O'Toole4, Wendy K Chung5, Mary B Daly6, Theresa H M Keegan7, Irene L Andrulis8, Angela R Bradbury9, Lisa Schwartz10, Julia A Knight11, Esther M John12, Saundra S Buys4. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center and mt146@columbia.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York; 3. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York; 4. Department of Medicine, University of Utah Health Sciences Center, Huntsman Cancer Institute, Salt Lake City, Utah; 5. Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center and Departments of Pediatrics and Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; 6. Department of Clinical Genetics, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; 7. Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of California (UC) Davis School of Medicine, and UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, Sacramento, California; 8. Department of Molecular Genetics and Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada; 9. Departments of Medicine and Hematology/Oncology, Medical Ethics and Health Policy, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; 10. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Oncology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA; 11. Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada; Division of Epidemiology, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; 12. Cancer Prevention Institute of California, Fremont, California; and Department of Health Research and Policy (Epidemiology), Stanford University School of Medicine, and Stanford Cancer Institute, Stanford, California USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Most epidemiologic studies of puberty have only 1 source of pubertal development information (maternal, self or clinical). Interpretation of results across studies requires data on reliability and validity across sources. METHODS: The LEGACY Girls Study, a 5-site prospective study of girls aged 6 to 13 years (n = 1040) collected information on breast and pubic hair development from mothers (for all daughters) and daughters (if ≥10 years) according to Tanner stage (T1-5) drawings. At 2 LEGACY sites, girls (n = 282) were also examined in the clinic by trained professionals. We assessed agreement (κ) and validity (sensitivity and specificity) with the clinical assessment (gold standard) for both the mothers' and daughters' assessment in the subcohort of 282. In the entire cohort, we examined the agreement between mothers and daughters. RESULTS: Compared with clinical assessment, sensitivity of maternal assessment for breast development was 77.2 and specificity was 94.3. In girls aged ≥11 years, self-assessment had higher sensitivity and specificity than maternal report. Specificity for both mothers and self, but not sensitivity, was significantly lower for overweight girls. In the overall cohort, maternal and daughter agreement for breast development and pubic hair development (T2+ vs T1) were similar (0.66, [95% confidence interval 0.58-0.75] and 0.69 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.77], respectively), but declined with age. Mothers were more likely to report a lower Tanner stage for both breast and pubic hair compared with self-assessments. CONCLUSIONS: These differences in validity should be considered in studies measuring pubertal changes longitudinally when they do not have access to clinical assessments.
BACKGROUND: Most epidemiologic studies of puberty have only 1 source of pubertal development information (maternal, self or clinical). Interpretation of results across studies requires data on reliability and validity across sources. METHODS: The LEGACY Girls Study, a 5-site prospective study of girls aged 6 to 13 years (n = 1040) collected information on breast and pubic hair development from mothers (for all daughters) and daughters (if ≥10 years) according to Tanner stage (T1-5) drawings. At 2 LEGACY sites, girls (n = 282) were also examined in the clinic by trained professionals. We assessed agreement (κ) and validity (sensitivity and specificity) with the clinical assessment (gold standard) for both the mothers' and daughters' assessment in the subcohort of 282. In the entire cohort, we examined the agreement between mothers and daughters. RESULTS: Compared with clinical assessment, sensitivity of maternal assessment for breast development was 77.2 and specificity was 94.3. In girls aged ≥11 years, self-assessment had higher sensitivity and specificity than maternal report. Specificity for both mothers and self, but not sensitivity, was significantly lower for overweight girls. In the overall cohort, maternal and daughter agreement for breast development and pubic hair development (T2+ vs T1) were similar (0.66, [95% confidence interval 0.58-0.75] and 0.69 [95% confidence interval 0.61-0.77], respectively), but declined with age. Mothers were more likely to report a lower Tanner stage for both breast and pubic hair compared with self-assessments. CONCLUSIONS: These differences in validity should be considered in studies measuring pubertal changes longitudinally when they do not have access to clinical assessments.
Authors: Frank M Biro; Louise C Greenspan; Maida P Galvez; Susan M Pinney; Susan Teitelbaum; Gayle C Windham; Julianna Deardorff; Robert L Herrick; Paul A Succop; Robert A Hiatt; Lawrence H Kushi; Mary S Wolff Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-11-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Susan Y Euling; Marcia E Herman-Giddens; Peter A Lee; Sherry G Selevan; Anders Juul; Thorkild I A Sørensen; Leo Dunkel; John H Himes; Grete Teilmann; Shanna H Swan Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Sara Aghaee; Cecile A Laurent; Julianna Deardorff; Assiamira Ferrara; Louise C Greenspan; Charles P Quesenberry; Lawrence H Kushi; Ai Kubo Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Hui-Chen Wu; Laura A Brennan; Mandy Goldberg; Wendy K Chung; Ying Wei; Regina M Santella; Mary Beth Terry Journal: Free Radic Res Date: 2020-09-10
Authors: Hui-Chen Wu; Catherine Do; Irene L Andrulis; Esther M John; Mary B Daly; Saundra S Buys; Wendy K Chung; Julia A Knight; Angela R Bradbury; Theresa H M Keegan; Lisa Schwartz; Izabela Krupska; Rachel L Miller; Regina M Santella; Benjamin Tycko; Mary Beth Terry Journal: Epigenetics Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 4.528
Authors: Esther M John; Theresa H Keegan; Mary Beth Terry; Jocelyn Koo; Sue A Ingles; Jenny T Nguyen; Catherine Thomsen; Regina M Santella; Khue Nguyen; Beizhan Yan Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 4.860
Authors: Nana-Hawa Yayah Jones; Jane C Khoury; Yingying Xu; Nicholas Newman; Heidi J Kalkwarf; Joseph M Braun; Bruce Lanphear; Aimin Chen; Kim M Cecil; Susan R Rose; Kimberly Yolton Journal: J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 1.520
Authors: Ai Kubo; Julianna Deardorff; Cecile A Laurent; Assiamira Ferrara; Louise C Greenspan; Charles P Quesenberry; Lawrence H Kushi Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Mary Beth Terry; Theresa H M Keegan; Lauren C Houghton; Mandy Goldberg; Irene L Andrulis; Mary B Daly; Saundra S Buys; Ying Wei; Alice S Whittemore; Angeline Protacio; Angela R Bradbury; Wendy K Chung; Julia A Knight; Esther M John Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2017-06-08 Impact factor: 6.466