A systematic review of publications assessing reliability and validity of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2004-2011.
A systematic review of publications assessing reliability and validity of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2004-2011.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1471-2288-13-49
复制
发表时间：
2013-03-24
影响因子：
4
通讯作者：
Balluz L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pierannunzi C;Hu SS;Balluz L
近年来，电话调查的回复率一直在下降。行为风险因素监测系统(BRFSS)的比率也有所下降，促使使用新的加权方法，并纳入手机采样框架。一些学者和研究人员在这些变化的背景下对BRFSS估计的可靠性和有效性进行了研究。随着BRFSS对其抽样和加权方法的改变，有必要对BRFSS的信度和效度研究进行审查。为了评估来自BRFSS的患病率估计的可靠性和有效性，2004-2011年发表的关于BRFSS测量的可靠性和有效性测试的学术论文以健康危险行为为主题进行汇编和介绍。对每份出版物的质量进行了评估，并使用了分类标准。使用重复测试/重测措施进行可靠性测试的作者或使用多个样本进行测试的作者获得了更高的排名。一个类似的标准也被用来对有效性评估进行排名。将BRFSS与身体测量进行比较的有效性测试排名高于将BRFSS与其他自我报告的数据进行比较的测试。进行更复杂的统计比较的文献排名也更高。总体调查结果表明，BRFSS的流行率与依赖自我报告的其他国家调查相当，尽管在某些类别的答复中注意到具体的差异。BRFSS患病率与调查不太相似，调查除了使用自我报告的数据外，还使用物理测量。一些健康问题的信度和效度研究很少，但也有大量信息支持BRFSS数据的有效性。审查BRFSS的局限性是由于用作比较的调查之间的问题差异，以及数据收集方式的差异。随着BRFSS纳入手机数据和改变加权方法，对可靠性和有效性研究的审查表明，与其他调查相比，过去BRFSS仅使用固定电话的数据是可靠和有效的。需要对BRFSS数据进行新的分析和比较，包括新的方法和手机数据，以确定这些变化对今后估计数的影响。
In recent years response rates on telephone surveys have been declining. Rates for the behavioral risk factor surveillance system (BRFSS) have also declined, prompting the use of new methods of weighting and the inclusion of cell phone sampling frames. A number of scholars and researchers have conducted studies of the reliability and validity of the BRFSS estimates in the context of these changes. As the BRFSS makes changes in its methods of sampling and weighting, a review of reliability and validity studies of the BRFSS is needed. In order to assess the reliability and validity of prevalence estimates taken from the BRFSS, scholarship published from 2004–2011 dealing with tests of reliability and validity of BRFSS measures was compiled and presented by topics of health risk behavior. Assessments of the quality of each publication were undertaken using a categorical rubric. Higher rankings were achieved by authors who conducted reliability tests using repeated test/retest measures, or who conducted tests using multiple samples. A similar rubric was used to rank validity assessments. Validity tests which compared the BRFSS to physical measures were ranked higher than those comparing the BRFSS to other self-reported data. Literature which undertook more sophisticated statistical comparisons was also ranked higher. Overall findings indicated that BRFSS prevalence rates were comparable to other national surveys which rely on self-reports, although specific differences are noted for some categories of response. BRFSS prevalence rates were less similar to surveys which utilize physical measures in addition to self-reported data. There is very little research on reliability and validity for some health topics, but a great deal of information supporting the validity of the BRFSS data for others. Limitations of the examination of the BRFSS were due to question differences among surveys used as comparisons, as well as mode of data collection differences. As the BRFSS moves to incorporating cell phone data and changing weighting methods, a review of reliability and validity research indicated that past BRFSS landline only data were reliable and valid as measured against other surveys. New analyses and comparisons of BRFSS data which include the new methodologies and cell phone data will be needed to ascertain the impact of these changes on estimates in the future.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Bombard, JM;Powell, KE;Wilson, WH
通讯作者：
Wilson, WH
影响因子：
1.9
作者：
LANDIS, JR;KOCH, GG
通讯作者：
KOCH, GG
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Andresen, EM;Catlin, TK;Jackson-Thompson, J
通讯作者：
Jackson-Thompson, J
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Bonomi, AE;Thompson, RS;Martin, DP
通讯作者：
Martin, DP
影响因子：
5.5
作者：
Evenson, KR;McGinn, AP
通讯作者：
McGinn, AP