Aim:To assess reporting characteristics of commonly dichotomised pregnancy outcomes (e.g. preterm/term birth); and to investigate whether behaviours (e.g. smoking), medical conditions (e.g. diabetes) or interventions (e.g. induction) were reported differently by pregnancy outcomes. Methods: Further analysis of a previous validation study was undertaken, in which 1680 perinatal records were compared with data extracted from medical records. Continuous and polytomous variables were dichotomised, and risk factor reporting was assessed within the dichotomised outcome groups. Agreement, kappa, sensitivity and positive predictive value calculations were undertaken. Results: Gestational age, birthweight, Apgar scores, perineal trauma, regional analgesia and baby discharge status (live birth/ stillbirth) were reported with high accuracy and reliability when dichotomised (kappa values 0.95-1.00, sensitivities 94.7-100.0%). Although not statistically significant, there were trends for hypertension, infant resuscitation and instrumental birth to be more accurately reported among births with adverse outcomes. In contrast, smoking ascertainment tended to be poorer among preterm births and when babies were ,2500 g. Conclusion: Dichotomising variables collected as continuous or polytomous variables in birth data results in accurate and well ascertained data items. There is no evidence of systematic differential reporting of risk factors.Population level data are well suited to studies evaluating health care. With the risk of sampling bias removed, estimation of incidence and prevalence rates can be made, allowing for description of the total burden of a particular disease or outcome, analysis of risk factors and trends, as well as identification of health inequalities and estimation of health costs. 1,2 Accurate conclusions from such analyses rely on high quality data that truly represent the population experience. Assessment of data quality (completeness and accuracy) is typically undertaken by a validation study, in which data from a sample of records from the population dataset are compared to a highly reliable and accurate source of data ('the gold standard') for the corresponding records. The accuracy and reliability of individual data items are typically reported. 3,4 The variables in perinatal population data can be continuous (e.g. gestational age), nominal (e.g. mode of delivery) and ordinal (e.g. first, second, third or fourth degree perineal tears), with validation of such variables typically reporting percent agreement and kappa statistics. These types of variables are frequently dichotomised in analyses (e.g. preterm birth, caesarean section, or third-fourth degree tears), 5,6 but little assessment has been undertaken into the accuracy and reliability of their dichotomised form.Differential reporting in population health data occurs when a variable is reported with different accuracy and reliability amongst different strata of another variable. This can introduce systematic bias, leading to under or over...