Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Misclassification frequently leads to bias in epidemiological studies, and causes concern for perinatal epidemiologists interested in using birth certificates as a data source. We used a maximum likelihood method to estimate the classification probabilities (conditional probabilities that indicate the probability of classification in a particular category, given the person's true category) of two data sources for a three-category outcome of prenatal care. The probability that women receiving adequate or inadequate care were correctly classified was estimated to be greater than 90%. The probability was much lower (< 35%) that women receiving intermediate care were correctly classified. The misclassification women from the intermediate category resulted in poor predictive values (< 70%) of women classified as receiving either adequate or inadequate care. Because of these findings, we combined the adequate and intermediate categories to form a two-category classification system. This revision resulted in higher positive predictive values (> 90%) with only a slightly lower classification probability (> 85%) for the combined category. We conclude that the degree of accuracy for a two-category classification of prenatal care based upon birth certificate information is acceptable, but we question the accuracy of indices of prenatal care with more than two categories.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McDermott et al. (1997) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: