Validity and Reliability of Subject and Mother Reporting of Perinatal Factors

• Published in: American journal of epidemiology 1998-01, Vol.147 (2), p.136-140
• Main Authors: Sanderson, Maureen, Williams, Michelle A., White, Emily, Daling, Janet R., Holt, Victoria L., Malone, Kathleen E., Self, Steven G., Moore, Donald E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Birth Weight; Breast Neoplasms; Case-Control Studies; Female; Gynecology. Andrology. Obstetrics; Humans; Infant, Newborn; Mammary gland diseases; Maternal Age; Medical sciences; Odds Ratio; Perinatal Care; Pregnancy; reliability; Reproducibility of Results; Risk Factors; Tumors; validity
• ISSN: 0002-9262; 1476-6256
• DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a009425

The authors used data from a population-based case-control study of breast cancer in women aged ≤44 years (cases, n = 975; controls, n = 866) conducted between 1994 and 1996 in three counties of western Washington state to assess the validity and reliability of reported perinatal factors. For a sample of participants, exposure information from self-administered questionnaires was validated with information from birth certificates (cases, n = 378; controls, n = 283). Detailed information regarding perinatal characteristics of their daughters was also collected from subjects' mothers (case mothers, n = 510; control mothers, n = 436) to assess the reliability of subjects' reporting of these events. Although reporting of birth weight by subjects (cases, r = 0.83; controls, r = 0.80) and their mothers (case mothers, r = 0.89; control mothers, r = 0.84) was highly correlated with the birth certificates, there was differential measurement error by subjects; cases reported birth weight accurately on average, but controls tended to underestimate their birth weight. Agreement between the subject and mother report was excellent for birth weight (cases, r = 0.85; controls, r = 0.87) and good for other perinatal factors, but birth order and maternal diethyistilbestrol use were underreported among cases and reported accurately among controls. Differential measurement error of birth weight by case-control status resulted in based odds ratios for breast cancer risk. Am J Epidemiol 1998;147:136–40.