OBJECTIVES: Sources of measurement error in assessing smoking status are examined. METHODS: The Lung Health Study, a randomized trial in 10 clinical centers, includes 3923 participants in a smoking cessation program and 1964 usual care participants. Smoking at first annual follow-up was assessed by salivary cotinine, expired air carbon monoxide, and self-report. Each of these measures is known to contain some error. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by comparing a biochemical measure with self-report to produce an undifferentiated estimate of error. Classification error rates due to imprecision of the biochemical measures and to the error in self-report were estimated separately. RESULTS: For cotinine compared with self-report, the sensitivity was 99.0% and the specificity 91.5%. For carbon monoxide compared with self-report, the sensitivity was 93.7% and the specificity 87.2%. The classification error attributed to self-report, estimated by comparing the results from intervention and control groups, was associated with the responses of 3% and 5% of participants, indicating a small but significant bias toward a socially desirable response. CONCLUSIONS: In absolute terms in these data, both types of error were small.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Sources of measurement error in assessing smoking status are examined. METHODS: The Lung Health Study, a randomized trial in 10 clinical centers, includes 3923 participants in a smoking cessation program and 1964 usual care participants. Smoking at first annual follow-up was assessed by salivary cotinine, expired air carbon monoxide, and self-report. Each of these measures is known to contain some error. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by comparing a biochemical measure with self-report to produce an undifferentiated estimate of error. Classification error rates due to imprecision of the biochemical measures and to the error in self-report were estimated separately. RESULTS: For cotinine compared with self-report, the sensitivity was 99.0% and the specificity 91.5%. For carbon monoxide compared with self-report, the sensitivity was 93.7% and the specificity 87.2%. The classification error attributed to self-report, estimated by comparing the results from intervention and control groups, was associated with the responses of 3% and 5% of participants, indicating a small but significant bias toward a socially desirable response. CONCLUSIONS: In absolute terms in these data, both types of error were small.
Authors: T Lang; V Nicaud; K Slama; A Hirsch; E Imbernon; M Goldberg; L Calvel; P Desobry; J P Favre-Trosson; C Lhopital; P Mathevon; D Miara; A Miliani; F Panthier; G Pons; C Roitg; M Thoores Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2000-05 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Lisa Sanderson Cox; Nicole L Nollen; Matthew S Mayo; Won S Choi; Babalola Faseru; Neal L Benowitz; Rachel F Tyndale; Kolawole S Okuyemi; Jasjit S Ahluwalia Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Ruth H Keogh; Pamela A Shaw; Paul Gustafson; Raymond J Carroll; Veronika Deffner; Kevin W Dodd; Helmut Küchenhoff; Janet A Tooze; Michael P Wallace; Victor Kipnis; Laurence S Freedman Journal: Stat Med Date: 2020-04-03 Impact factor: 2.373