IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/19938391251-1257_4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Error in smoking measures: Effects of intervention on relations of cotinine and carbon monoxide to self-reported smoking

Author

Listed:
  • Murray, R.P.
  • Connett, J.E.
  • Lauger, G.G.
  • Voelker, H.T.

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Murray, R.P. & Connett, J.E. & Lauger, G.G. & Voelker, H.T., 1993. "Error in smoking measures: Effects of intervention on relations of cotinine and carbon monoxide to self-reported smoking," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 83(9), pages 1251-1257.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1993:83:9:1251-1257_4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gio Batta Gori, 1995. "Policy Against Science: The Case of Environmental Tobacco Smoke," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1), pages 15-22, February.
    2. Sungroul Kim, 2016. "Overview of Cotinine Cutoff Values for Smoking Status Classification," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-15, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1993:83:9:1251-1257_4. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.