Skip to main content
Occupational and Environmental Medicine logoLink to Occupational and Environmental Medicine
. 1998 Oct;55(10):651–656. doi: 10.1136/oem.55.10.651

Effect of measurement error on epidemiological studies of environmental and occupational exposures

B G Armstrong
PMCID: PMC1757516  PMID: 9930084

Abstract

Random error (misclassification) in exposure measurements usually biases a relative risk, regression coefficient, or other effect measure towards the null value (no association). The most important exception is Berkson type error, which causes little or no bias. Berkson type error arises, in particular, due to use of group average exposure in place of individual values. Random error in exposure measurements, Berkson or otherwise, reduces the power of a study, making it more likely that real associations are not detected. Random error in confounding variables compromises the control of their effect, leaving residual confounding. Random error in a variable that modifies the effect of exposure on health--for example, an indicator of susceptibility--tends to diminish the observed modification of effect, but error in the exposure can create a supurious appearance of modification. Methods are available to correct for bias (but not generally power loss) due to measurement error, if information on the magnitude and type of error is available. These methods can be complicated to use, however, and should be used cautiously as "correction" can magnify confounding if it is present.

 

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (131.3 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Armstrong B. G. The effects of measurement errors on relative risk regressions. Am J Epidemiol. 1990 Dec;132(6):1176–1184. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a115761. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Lagakos S. W. Effects of mismodelling and mismeasuring explanatory variables on tests of their association with a response variable. Stat Med. 1988 Jan-Feb;7(1-2):257–274. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780070126. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Sorahan T., Gilthorpe M. S. Non-differential misclassification of exposure always leads to an underestimate of risk: an incorrect conclusion. Occup Environ Med. 1994 Dec;51(12):839–840. doi: 10.1136/oem.51.12.839. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Wacholder S., Hartge P., Lubin J. H., Dosemeci M. Non-differential misclassification and bias towards the null: a clarification. Occup Environ Med. 1995 Aug;52(8):557–558. doi: 10.1136/oem.52.8.557. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. de Klerk N. H., English D. R., Armstrong B. K. A review of the effects of random measurement error on relative risk estimates in epidemiological studies. Int J Epidemiol. 1989 Sep;18(3):705–712. doi: 10.1093/ije/18.3.705. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Occupational and Environmental Medicine are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES