Reliability and validity of disability questions for US census 2000

E. M. Andresen; C. A. Fitch; P. M. McLendon; A. R. Meyers

doi:10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1297

Reliability and validity of disability questions for US census 2000

E. M. Andresen, C. A. Fitch, P. M. McLendon, A. R. Meyers

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

61 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives. We investigated the validity and proxy reliability of 7 new disability questions from the 2000 US census ('Census 2000'). Methods. A total of 131 people with disabilities and their proxies from St Louis, Mo, and Massachusetts were interviewed, and responses were compared for concordance. Responses also were compared with responses to questions from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) instrument. Results. Overall, proxies reported more impairment than did people with disabilities, and agreement was low (κg = 0.24-0.55). Concordance was moderate between the census questions and their BRFSS and ADL counterparts. Conclusions. The Census 2000 questions may not provide an accurate profile of disability in America.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1297-1299
Number of pages	3
Journal	American journal of public health
Volume	90
Issue number	8
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1297
State	Published - 2000
Externally published	Yes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Access to Document

10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1297

Cite this

@article{5a5a1a6b99d84952accbf005dff4cf67,

title = "Reliability and validity of disability questions for US census 2000",

abstract = "Objectives. We investigated the validity and proxy reliability of 7 new disability questions from the 2000 US census ('Census 2000'). Methods. A total of 131 people with disabilities and their proxies from St Louis, Mo, and Massachusetts were interviewed, and responses were compared for concordance. Responses also were compared with responses to questions from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) instrument. Results. Overall, proxies reported more impairment than did people with disabilities, and agreement was low (κg = 0.24-0.55). Concordance was moderate between the census questions and their BRFSS and ADL counterparts. Conclusions. The Census 2000 questions may not provide an accurate profile of disability in America.",

author = "Andresen, {E. M.} and Fitch, {C. A.} and McLendon, {P. M.} and Meyers, {A. R.}",

year = "2000",

doi = "10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1297",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "90",

pages = "1297--1299",

journal = "American journal of public health",

issn = "0090-0036",

publisher = "American Public Health Association Inc.",

number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability and validity of disability questions for US census 2000

AU - Andresen, E. M.

AU - Fitch, C. A.

AU - McLendon, P. M.

AU - Meyers, A. R.

PY - 2000

Y1 - 2000

N2 - Objectives. We investigated the validity and proxy reliability of 7 new disability questions from the 2000 US census ('Census 2000'). Methods. A total of 131 people with disabilities and their proxies from St Louis, Mo, and Massachusetts were interviewed, and responses were compared for concordance. Responses also were compared with responses to questions from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) instrument. Results. Overall, proxies reported more impairment than did people with disabilities, and agreement was low (κg = 0.24-0.55). Concordance was moderate between the census questions and their BRFSS and ADL counterparts. Conclusions. The Census 2000 questions may not provide an accurate profile of disability in America.

AB - Objectives. We investigated the validity and proxy reliability of 7 new disability questions from the 2000 US census ('Census 2000'). Methods. A total of 131 people with disabilities and their proxies from St Louis, Mo, and Massachusetts were interviewed, and responses were compared for concordance. Responses also were compared with responses to questions from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) instrument. Results. Overall, proxies reported more impairment than did people with disabilities, and agreement was low (κg = 0.24-0.55). Concordance was moderate between the census questions and their BRFSS and ADL counterparts. Conclusions. The Census 2000 questions may not provide an accurate profile of disability in America.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0033931559&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0033931559&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1297

DO - 10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1297

M3 - Article

C2 - 10937013

AN - SCOPUS:0033931559

SN - 0090-0036

VL - 90

SP - 1297

EP - 1299

JO - American journal of public health

JF - American journal of public health

IS - 8

ER -

Reliability and validity of disability questions for US census 2000

Abstract

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this