ArticleFrontiers in research metrics and analytics2025
Does who responds matter?: exploring potential proxy response bias in the Washington Group Short Set disability estimates.
Article in Frontiers in research metrics and analytics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Washington Group Short Set (WG-SS) is a widely used tool for identifying disability in national and international population-based surveys. However, results from cognitive testing revealed key differences in response patterns between individuals who self-report and those with a proxy respondent. Considering proxy reporting is frequently used in national surveys, discrepancies between reporting sources could affect the accuracy of disability prevalence estimates and have important implications for health equity and policy. Methods: A binary logistic regression was conducted to examine the relationship between proxy respondents and WG-SS disability status after controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, using pooled data from the 2010-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). Results: After controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, proxy respondents were 4.48 times more likely to be classified as having a WG-SS disability compared to those who self-reported. Discussion: Differences in proxy reporting have real implications for equity, access, and policy accountability. If proxy reporting systematically increases the likelihood of disability classification, prevalence estimates may be distorted. This is especially problematic when proxies are more likely to report for populations already at risk of under- or overrepresentation in disability data, such as older adults, people with cognitive disabilities, and children and adolescents. Future studies using the WG-SS should treat the reporting source, i.e., proxy response, not as a procedural footnote, but as a central variable in assessing data quality and equity.
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.