Loading…

Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?

Background. Prior studies of recall accuracy for screening mammogram behavior have examined relatively homogeneous groups. Data are limited on possible systematic group differences, so we evaluated women's recall accuracy in two separate care systems in one city. Methods. Women 50 to 70 years o...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Preventive medicine 1999-12, Vol.29 (6), p.577-580
Main Authors: Lawrence, Valerie A., De Moor, Carl, Glenn, M.Elizabeth
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743
container_end_page 580
container_issue 6
container_start_page 577
container_title Preventive medicine
container_volume 29
creator Lawrence, Valerie A.
De Moor, Carl
Glenn, M.Elizabeth
description Background. Prior studies of recall accuracy for screening mammogram behavior have examined relatively homogeneous groups. Data are limited on possible systematic group differences, so we evaluated women's recall accuracy in two separate care systems in one city. Methods. Women 50 to 70 years old with and without screening mammograms 10 to 14 months prior were identified from fiscal, clinic, and radiology records at a military care system (MCS) and a county-funded system (CFS) for indigents. Mammogram status was verified through radiology records. Women were excluded if mammograms were diagnostic, done for other than annual screening, or had abnormal results. Interview ers blinded to mammogram status surveyed randomly selected eligible women. Results. For 62 screened/31 unscreened MCS women and 78 screened/61 unscreened CFS women, specificity was similar, at 65 and 62%, respectively. In contrast, sensitivity varied significantly: 95% versus 79% (P = 0.011). Primary ethonocultural groups were Euro-American (MCS—60%) and Mexican American (CFS—85%). Although not different in specificity of recall (67% versus 61%), these major subgroups significantly differed in sensitivity (97% versus 80%, P = 0.017), proportion of true negatives due to never having a mammogram (35% versus 57%, P = 0.003), and proportion with ≥high school education (78% versus 19%, P < 0.00001). Conclusion. Systematic differences in recall validity may exist and compromise the accuracy of intergroup comparisons.
doi_str_mv 10.1006/pmed.1999.0575
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69368911</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0091743599905753</els_id><sourcerecordid>69368911</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1P3DAQhq2Kqmxprz1WPnHLMpPETtxLBUv5kKhAXdqr5TgTcJXEwc6utP-eRLsSJw6jOcwzr_Q-jH1DWCKAPBs6qpeolFqCKMQHtkBQMoFUwhFbAChMijwTx-xzjP8BECXkn9gxggTIc1gwv97FkTozOssvXdNQoN5S5K7n_0zrajfuuG_4mtom-UODDyPV_LfpOv8UzPC84xf0bLbOhx_8nD8EX7XU8cYHftuPFJ6C3wx85bvBBBd9H39-YR8b00b6etgn7O_Vr8fVTXJ3f327Or9LbJbDmKRQFNKUmE0VQBYiFYDUyFRmBYlp6gorNEVqhYVSAVoQFZmsrFGVop4qn7DTfe4Q_MuG4qg7Fy21renJb6KWKpOlQpzA5R60wccYqNFDcJ0JO42gZ8V6VqxnxXpWPD18PyRvqvnyhu-dTkC5B2jqt3UUdLRutlq7QHbUtXfvZb8CGoCKlw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>69368911</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?</title><source>Elsevier</source><creator>Lawrence, Valerie A. ; De Moor, Carl ; Glenn, M.Elizabeth</creator><creatorcontrib>Lawrence, Valerie A. ; De Moor, Carl ; Glenn, M.Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><description>Background. Prior studies of recall accuracy for screening mammogram behavior have examined relatively homogeneous groups. Data are limited on possible systematic group differences, so we evaluated women's recall accuracy in two separate care systems in one city. Methods. Women 50 to 70 years old with and without screening mammograms 10 to 14 months prior were identified from fiscal, clinic, and radiology records at a military care system (MCS) and a county-funded system (CFS) for indigents. Mammogram status was verified through radiology records. Women were excluded if mammograms were diagnostic, done for other than annual screening, or had abnormal results. Interview ers blinded to mammogram status surveyed randomly selected eligible women. Results. For 62 screened/31 unscreened MCS women and 78 screened/61 unscreened CFS women, specificity was similar, at 65 and 62%, respectively. In contrast, sensitivity varied significantly: 95% versus 79% (P = 0.011). Primary ethonocultural groups were Euro-American (MCS—60%) and Mexican American (CFS—85%). Although not different in specificity of recall (67% versus 61%), these major subgroups significantly differed in sensitivity (97% versus 80%, P = 0.017), proportion of true negatives due to never having a mammogram (35% versus 57%, P = 0.003), and proportion with ≥high school education (78% versus 19%, P &lt; 0.00001). Conclusion. Systematic differences in recall validity may exist and compromise the accuracy of intergroup comparisons.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0091-7435</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-0260</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1006/pmed.1999.0575</identifier><identifier>PMID: 10600440</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Aged ; Data Collection ; Female ; Humans ; mammography ; Mammography - utilization ; Mass Screening - utilization ; Mental Recall ; Middle Aged ; Reproducibility of Results ; screening.tw ; sensitivity ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Socioeconomic Factors ; specificity ; Texas ; validity</subject><ispartof>Preventive medicine, 1999-12, Vol.29 (6), p.577-580</ispartof><rights>1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press</rights><rights>Copyright 1999 American Health Foundation and Academic Press.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10600440$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lawrence, Valerie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Moor, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glenn, M.Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><title>Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?</title><title>Preventive medicine</title><addtitle>Prev Med</addtitle><description>Background. Prior studies of recall accuracy for screening mammogram behavior have examined relatively homogeneous groups. Data are limited on possible systematic group differences, so we evaluated women's recall accuracy in two separate care systems in one city. Methods. Women 50 to 70 years old with and without screening mammograms 10 to 14 months prior were identified from fiscal, clinic, and radiology records at a military care system (MCS) and a county-funded system (CFS) for indigents. Mammogram status was verified through radiology records. Women were excluded if mammograms were diagnostic, done for other than annual screening, or had abnormal results. Interview ers blinded to mammogram status surveyed randomly selected eligible women. Results. For 62 screened/31 unscreened MCS women and 78 screened/61 unscreened CFS women, specificity was similar, at 65 and 62%, respectively. In contrast, sensitivity varied significantly: 95% versus 79% (P = 0.011). Primary ethonocultural groups were Euro-American (MCS—60%) and Mexican American (CFS—85%). Although not different in specificity of recall (67% versus 61%), these major subgroups significantly differed in sensitivity (97% versus 80%, P = 0.017), proportion of true negatives due to never having a mammogram (35% versus 57%, P = 0.003), and proportion with ≥high school education (78% versus 19%, P &lt; 0.00001). Conclusion. Systematic differences in recall validity may exist and compromise the accuracy of intergroup comparisons.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Data Collection</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>mammography</subject><subject>Mammography - utilization</subject><subject>Mass Screening - utilization</subject><subject>Mental Recall</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>screening.tw</subject><subject>sensitivity</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Socioeconomic Factors</subject><subject>specificity</subject><subject>Texas</subject><subject>validity</subject><issn>0091-7435</issn><issn>1096-0260</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1P3DAQhq2Kqmxprz1WPnHLMpPETtxLBUv5kKhAXdqr5TgTcJXEwc6utP-eRLsSJw6jOcwzr_Q-jH1DWCKAPBs6qpeolFqCKMQHtkBQMoFUwhFbAChMijwTx-xzjP8BECXkn9gxggTIc1gwv97FkTozOssvXdNQoN5S5K7n_0zrajfuuG_4mtom-UODDyPV_LfpOv8UzPC84xf0bLbOhx_8nD8EX7XU8cYHftuPFJ6C3wx85bvBBBd9H39-YR8b00b6etgn7O_Vr8fVTXJ3f327Or9LbJbDmKRQFNKUmE0VQBYiFYDUyFRmBYlp6gorNEVqhYVSAVoQFZmsrFGVop4qn7DTfe4Q_MuG4qg7Fy21renJb6KWKpOlQpzA5R60wccYqNFDcJ0JO42gZ8V6VqxnxXpWPD18PyRvqvnyhu-dTkC5B2jqt3UUdLRutlq7QHbUtXfvZb8CGoCKlw</recordid><startdate>19991201</startdate><enddate>19991201</enddate><creator>Lawrence, Valerie A.</creator><creator>De Moor, Carl</creator><creator>Glenn, M.Elizabeth</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19991201</creationdate><title>Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?</title><author>Lawrence, Valerie A. ; De Moor, Carl ; Glenn, M.Elizabeth</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Data Collection</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>mammography</topic><topic>Mammography - utilization</topic><topic>Mass Screening - utilization</topic><topic>Mental Recall</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>screening.tw</topic><topic>sensitivity</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Socioeconomic Factors</topic><topic>specificity</topic><topic>Texas</topic><topic>validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lawrence, Valerie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>De Moor, Carl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Glenn, M.Elizabeth</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Preventive medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lawrence, Valerie A.</au><au>De Moor, Carl</au><au>Glenn, M.Elizabeth</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?</atitle><jtitle>Preventive medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Prev Med</addtitle><date>1999-12-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>577</spage><epage>580</epage><pages>577-580</pages><issn>0091-7435</issn><eissn>1096-0260</eissn><abstract>Background. Prior studies of recall accuracy for screening mammogram behavior have examined relatively homogeneous groups. Data are limited on possible systematic group differences, so we evaluated women's recall accuracy in two separate care systems in one city. Methods. Women 50 to 70 years old with and without screening mammograms 10 to 14 months prior were identified from fiscal, clinic, and radiology records at a military care system (MCS) and a county-funded system (CFS) for indigents. Mammogram status was verified through radiology records. Women were excluded if mammograms were diagnostic, done for other than annual screening, or had abnormal results. Interview ers blinded to mammogram status surveyed randomly selected eligible women. Results. For 62 screened/31 unscreened MCS women and 78 screened/61 unscreened CFS women, specificity was similar, at 65 and 62%, respectively. In contrast, sensitivity varied significantly: 95% versus 79% (P = 0.011). Primary ethonocultural groups were Euro-American (MCS—60%) and Mexican American (CFS—85%). Although not different in specificity of recall (67% versus 61%), these major subgroups significantly differed in sensitivity (97% versus 80%, P = 0.017), proportion of true negatives due to never having a mammogram (35% versus 57%, P = 0.003), and proportion with ≥high school education (78% versus 19%, P &lt; 0.00001). Conclusion. Systematic differences in recall validity may exist and compromise the accuracy of intergroup comparisons.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>10600440</pmid><doi>10.1006/pmed.1999.0575</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0091-7435
ispartof Preventive medicine, 1999-12, Vol.29 (6), p.577-580
issn 0091-7435
1096-0260
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69368911
source Elsevier
subjects Aged
Data Collection
Female
Humans
mammography
Mammography - utilization
Mass Screening - utilization
Mental Recall
Middle Aged
Reproducibility of Results
screening.tw
sensitivity
Sensitivity and Specificity
Socioeconomic Factors
specificity
Texas
validity
title Systematic Differences in Validity of Self-Reported Mammography Behavior: A Problem for Intergroup Comparisons?
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-08T09%3A44%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Systematic%20Differences%20in%20Validity%20of%20Self-Reported%20Mammography%20Behavior:%20A%20Problem%20for%20Intergroup%20Comparisons?&rft.jtitle=Preventive%20medicine&rft.au=Lawrence,%20Valerie%20A.&rft.date=1999-12-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=577&rft.epage=580&rft.pages=577-580&rft.issn=0091-7435&rft.eissn=1096-0260&rft_id=info:doi/10.1006/pmed.1999.0575&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69368911%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-20776a81300906752501ef62637e537edb1b1a72c5c08901c05bea38d1985d743%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=69368911&rft_id=info:pmid/10600440&rfr_iscdi=true