IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/19948471086-1093_9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The validity of self-reported smoking: A review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick, D.L.
  • Cheadle, A.
  • Thompson, D.C.
  • Diehr, P.
  • Koepsell, T.
  • Kinne, S.

Abstract

Objectives. The purpose of this study was to identify circumstances in which biochemical assessments of smoking produce systematically higher or lower estimates of smoking than self-reports. A secondary aim was to evaluate different statistical approaches to analyzing variation in validity estimates. Methods. Literature searches and personal inquiries identified 26 published reports containing 51 comparisons between self-reported behavior and biochemical measures. The sensitivity and specificity of self-reports of smoking were calculated for each study as measures of accuracy. Results. Sensitivity ranged from 6% to 100% (mean = 87.5%), and specificity ranged from 33% to 100% (mean = 89.2%). Interviewer-administered questionnaires, observational studies, reports by adults, and biochemical validation with cotinine-plasma were associated with higher estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions. Self-reports of smoking are accurate in most studies. To improve accuracy, biochemical assessment, preferably with cotinine-plasma, should be considered in intervention studies and student populations.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick, D.L. & Cheadle, A. & Thompson, D.C. & Diehr, P. & Koepsell, T. & Kinne, S., 1994. "The validity of self-reported smoking: A review and meta-analysis," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 84(7), pages 1086-1093.
  • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:1994:84:7:1086-1093_9
    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.

    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:1994:84:7:1086-1093_9. 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.