ArticleDisability and health journal2021
Beyond question wording: How survey design and administration shape estimates of disability.
Article in Disability and health journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBetween 2008 and 2014, annual estimates of disability prevalence among U.S. adults varied somewhat across federal surveys that use a standardized measure of disability, but trends over-time were relatively stable and consistent. In 2014, however, estimates of disability from the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) increased markedly relative to previous years and were much higher than disability estimates from other federal surveys.
objectiveTo examine why disability prevalence among adults aged 40 and older substantially increased in the first wave of the 2014 SIPP Panel.
methodsWe consider three factors that may have contributed to the rise in disability: data processing, context effects linked to question order, and sampling. To do so, we compare estimates with and without survey weights and imputed data, analyze supplemental disability-related data collected among SIPP participants, and employ decomposition analysis to assess what proportion of the increase in disability can be attributed to changes in sample composition.
resultsWe find evidence that differences in sample composition contributed to the observed rise in disability prevalence in SIPP between 2011 and 2014. There is less evidence that weighting and imputation or context effects played a role.
conclusionsPrevious studies emphasize differences in operationalization and conceptualization of disability as the major factor driving discrepancies in disability estimates. This study suggests that other factors related to survey design and administration may influence disability measurement. Such aspects of surveys, like question order and sampling, may be difficult to standardize, leading to meaningful cross-survey differences in disability estimates.
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.