Accuracy of Immunization Histories Provided by Adults Accompanying Preschool Children to a Pediatric Emergency Department

Goldstein, Karen P.; Kviz, Frederick J.; Daum, Robert S.

doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03510180060034

Cited by 111 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When asked a global question about whether or not their children's vaccination status was up to date, 83% of parents whose children were not up to date answered in the affirmative. A study by Goldstein et al (1993) yielded more accurate responses by parents to the global question, yet onethird of parents still answered the question incorrectly. More accurate estimates in the Goldstein et al (1993) study may be due to the fact that their population included only parents of younger children (3-5 years) whereas Willis et al (1999) included parents of children up to age 13.…”

Section: Accuracy Of Parental Self-reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study by Goldstein et al (1993) yielded more accurate responses by parents to the global question, yet onethird of parents still answered the question incorrectly. More accurate estimates in the Goldstein et al (1993) study may be due to the fact that their population included only parents of younger children (3-5 years) whereas Willis et al (1999) included parents of children up to age 13. Parents of younger children have fewer vaccinations to recall than that by the parents of older children.…”

Section: Accuracy Of Parental Self-reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One exception is in the area of parental report of child vaccination histories. Several studies have documented a tendency for parents to considerably overreport the number of vaccinations their child has received (Goldstein, Kviz, & Daum, 1993;Willis, Brittingham, Lee, Tourangeau, & Ching, 1999). Willis et al (1999) asked parents whether their children had received various vaccinations, and found little relationship between parental reports and the child's vaccination status, as verified by medical records.…”

Section: Accuracy Of Parental Self-reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Understanding and Improving the Validity of Self-Report of Parenting

Morsbach

Prinz

2006

Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev

219

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although researchers using parental self-report data have questioned its validity (Holden, 2001) and called for more work in this area (Krevans & Gibbs, 1996; Locke & Prinz, 2002), methodological concerns regarding self-report about parenting practices have not been addressed adequately. The susceptibility of parental report to systematic distortions suggests a need for research on ways to improve self-report. This paper attempts to synthesize research findings from other fields (e.g., survey methodology) about ways to improve the validity of self-report, and to discuss the implications for self-report of parenting behaviors. Methods for improving self-report are presented for each of the 5 major tasks in responding to a question: (1) understanding the question, (2) recalling relevant behavior, (3) inference and estimation, (4) mapping the answer onto the response format, and (5) "editing" the answer for reasons of social desirability. Self-administered interviewing, audio-computer-assisted interviewing, pretesting, conversational interviewing, and the decompositional item may be among the best candidates for use in parental self-report. Recommendations are offered with respect to strategies that might prove useful in improving parental assessment of parenting, and to research efforts to evaluate the utility and potential costs of these strategies.

show abstract

Section: Accuracy Of Parental Self-reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Accuracy Of Parental Self-reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Accuracy Of Parental Self-reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Understanding and Improving the Validity of Self-Report of Parenting

Morsbach

Prinz

2006

Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev

219

167

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies have verified self-reported immunisation dates and have found low error rates [1,19] and, although parental recall of vaccination is considered not very reliable by some authors [13,14], others have concluded that an acceptable or even a better estimation of coverage can be achieved by including parental recall [15,16].…”

Section: Sources Of Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies conclude that information given by parents cannot be relied on to provide accurate immunisation histories [13,14], while others find that parents' reports on children's vaccination status are generally acceptable for research purposes and result in improved estimates of immunisation coverage [15,16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%