Variance and confidence limits in validation studies based on comparison between three different types of measurements.

P Ferrari, R Kaaks, E Riboli
{"title":"Variance and confidence limits in validation studies based on comparison between three different types of measurements.","authors":"P Ferrari,&nbsp;R Kaaks,&nbsp;E Riboli","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The methods used in epidemiological studies to assess exposure are often affected by a conspicuous amount of measurement error. Exposure-measurement error is recognised to cause attenuation in the association between exposure and disease. Among different possible approaches, the validity coefficient of a measurement can be estimated by a comparison of three types of measurements, using either structural equation models or factor analysis (the triads method). These approaches assume that the measurements are linearly related to true intake and have independent random errors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this paper we present an estimator of the variance of the estimated validity coefficient to compute the associated confidence intervals. Standard error for the validity coefficient allows the efficiency of validation studies to be evaluated. Our work was motivated by the fact that existing software does not provide correct standard errors for the estimated validity coefficient. The approach is illustrated using selected examples from dietary validation studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The accuracy of our formula is evaluated by comparison with the results of a simulation study, which shows that our variance estimator provides good results for sample sizes of at least n = 100 and when the expected value of the validity coefficient is not too close to 1.0, independent of the sample size. Our estimator formula performs better than either a naïve approach, that computes the standard error for a validity coefficient as if it is a straightforward correlation coefficient, or the SAS-CALIS procedure, which uses a maximum likelihood method.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In evaluating the validity of the type of measurement chosen to assess exposure in an epidemiological study, it is important to provide an estimate of the precision of the validity coefficient of the measurement. Our variance estimator may help calculate sample size requirements for validation studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":80024,"journal":{"name":"Journal of epidemiology and biostatistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of epidemiology and biostatistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The methods used in epidemiological studies to assess exposure are often affected by a conspicuous amount of measurement error. Exposure-measurement error is recognised to cause attenuation in the association between exposure and disease. Among different possible approaches, the validity coefficient of a measurement can be estimated by a comparison of three types of measurements, using either structural equation models or factor analysis (the triads method). These approaches assume that the measurements are linearly related to true intake and have independent random errors.

Methods: In this paper we present an estimator of the variance of the estimated validity coefficient to compute the associated confidence intervals. Standard error for the validity coefficient allows the efficiency of validation studies to be evaluated. Our work was motivated by the fact that existing software does not provide correct standard errors for the estimated validity coefficient. The approach is illustrated using selected examples from dietary validation studies.

Results: The accuracy of our formula is evaluated by comparison with the results of a simulation study, which shows that our variance estimator provides good results for sample sizes of at least n = 100 and when the expected value of the validity coefficient is not too close to 1.0, independent of the sample size. Our estimator formula performs better than either a naïve approach, that computes the standard error for a validity coefficient as if it is a straightforward correlation coefficient, or the SAS-CALIS procedure, which uses a maximum likelihood method.

Conclusions: In evaluating the validity of the type of measurement chosen to assess exposure in an epidemiological study, it is important to provide an estimate of the precision of the validity coefficient of the measurement. Our variance estimator may help calculate sample size requirements for validation studies.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于三种不同测量类型比较的验证研究中的方差和置信限。
背景:流行病学研究中用于评估暴露的方法经常受到显著测量误差的影响。暴露-测量误差被认为是导致暴露与疾病之间关联减弱的原因。在不同的可能方法中,测量的效度系数可以通过比较三种类型的测量来估计,使用结构方程模型或因子分析(triads方法)。这些方法假设测量值与真实摄入量线性相关,并且具有独立的随机误差。方法:在本文中,我们给出了估计的效度系数方差的估计量来计算相关的置信区间。效度系数的标准误差允许对验证研究的效率进行评估。我们的工作的动机是现有的软件不能为估计的有效性系数提供正确的标准误差。从饮食验证研究中选择的例子说明了这种方法。结果:通过与仿真研究结果的比较,我们的公式的准确性得到了评价,结果表明,当样本容量至少为n = 100,且效度系数的期望值不太接近1.0,与样本量无关时,我们的方差估计器提供了良好的结果。我们的估计器公式比naïve方法或SAS-CALIS过程执行得更好,naïve方法计算有效性系数的标准误差,就好像它是一个直接的相关系数,SAS-CALIS过程使用最大似然方法。结论:在评估流行病学研究中用于评估暴露的测量类型的有效性时,重要的是提供测量效度系数的精度估计。我们的方差估计器可以帮助计算验证研究的样本量要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Statistical Inference Population, Exposure, and Outcome Measures of Disease Frequency Practice Problem Workbook Solutions Case Reports and Case Series
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1