ArticleJournal of epidemiology and community health2014
Measurement confounding affects the extent to which verbal IQ explains social gradients in mortality.
Article in Journal of epidemiology and community health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing harmonized intelligence measures in a multinational study.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2024Article
- High school personality traits and 48-year all-cause mortality risk: results from a national sample of 26 845 baby boomers.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2019Article
- The Intergenerational Transfer of Education Credentials and Health: Evidence from the 2008 General Social Survey-National Death Index.Journal of health care for the poor and underserved · 2016Article
- Measurement confounding affects the extent to which verbal IQ explains social gradients in mortality.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2014Article
- Inter-regional metric disadvantages when comparing country happiness on a global scale. A Rasch-based consequential validity analysis.International journal of psychological researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIQ is thought to explain social gradients in mortality. IQ scores are based roughly equally on Verbal IQ (VIQ) and Performance IQ tests. VIQ tests, however, are suspected to confound true verbal ability with socioeconomic status (SES), raising the possibility that associations between SES and IQ scores might be overestimated. We examined, first, whether two of the most common types of VIQ tests exhibited differential item functioning (DIF) favouring persons of higher SES and/or majority race/ethnicity. Second, we assessed what impact, if any, this had on estimates of the extent to which VIQ explains social gradients in mortality.
methodsData from the General Social Survey-National Death Index cohort, a US population representative dataset, was used. Item response theory models queried social-factor DIF on the Thorndike Verbal Intelligence Scale and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales, Revised Similarities test. Cox models examined mortality associations among SES and VIQ scores corrected and uncorrected for DIF.
resultsWhen uncorrected for DIF, VIQ was correlated with income, education, occupational prestige and race, with correlation coefficients ranging between |0.12| and |0.43|. After correcting for DIF, correlations ranged from |0.06| to |0.16|. Uncorrected VIQ scores explained 11-40% of the Relative Index of Inequalities in mortality for social factors, while DIF-corrected scores explained 2-29%.
conclusionsTwo of the common forms of VIQ tests appear confound verbal intelligence with SES. Since these tests appear in most IQ batteries, circumspection may be warranted in estimating the amount of social inequalities in mortality attributable to IQ.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.