ArticleInnovation in aging2024
Can Retrospective Reports Provide Accurate Job History Information? A Comparison With Concurrent Reports in a National Prospective Study of Older Adults.
Article in Innovation in aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The long-term impact of racial and ethnic school composition on late-life cognition, depressive symptoms, and overall health among older US Latinos.American journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
- Reliability of self-reported career histories reported by former professional association football players included in the health and ageing data iN the game of football (HEADING) study.Annals of work exposures and health · 2026Article
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
Background and Objectives: The growing interest in the impact of lifetime occupational exposures on later-life health underscores the need to expand and evaluate the quality of data resources. The present study took advantage of a retrospective life history survey fielded within the context of the Health and Retirement Study to assess the accuracy of retrospectively obtained information on job history. We evaluated hypotheses related to job history and respondent characteristics to understand more about factors associated with recall accuracy. Research Design and Methods: We used data from the Life History Mail Survey (LHMS), a self-administered survey conducted in 2015 and 2017. We compared the match rate of work status collected in the LHMS questionnaire with data collected concurrently during HRS core face-to-face or phone interviews from 1992 through 2016 with respect to jobs held at the time of the interview. We also conducted a limited set of comparisons of occupation and industry match. Results: The sample was 61.79% women, 82.12% White, and 8.57% Hispanic with a mean age of 74.70 years. The overall work status match rate was 83%. Jobs held longer ago were recalled with less accuracy. Jobs held for longer durations and that were full-time rather than part-time were recalled with greater accuracy. More complex job histories that involved a larger number of jobs were also associated with a lower match rate. Higher levels of conscientiousness and cognitive functioning were both associated with a higher match between the two sources of work status information. The occupation match rate was 69%, and the industry match rate was 77%. Discussion and Implications: A self-administered, paper-and-pencil questionnaire attempting to measure decades-long histories of autobiographically important dimensions of life can provide reasonably accurate historical employment information. Several factors are likely to influence the relative accuracy of recalled information.
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.