, Volume 50, Issue 2, pp 521–544 | Cite as

Estimation of Covariate Effects With Current Status Data and Differential Mortality



The assessment of the impact that socioeconomic determinants have on the prevalence of certain chronic conditions reported by respondents in population surveys must confront two problems. First, the self-reports could be in error (false positives and false negatives). Second, those reporting are a selected sample of those who ever experience the problem, and this selection is heavily influenced by excess mortality attributable to the condition being reported. In this article, we use a combination of empirical data and microsimulation to (a) assess the magnitude of the bias attributable to the selection problem, and (b) suggest an adjustment procedure that corrects for this bias. We find that the proposed adjustment procedure considerably reduces the bias arising from differential mortality.


Current status data Selection bias Mortality Health inequality 


  1. Aguilar-Salinas, C. A., Rojas, R., Gόmez-Pérez, F. J., García, E., Valles, V., Ríos-Torres, J. M., . . . Rull, J. A. (2002). Prevalence and characteristics of early-onset type 2 diabetes in Mexico. American Journal of Medicine, 113, 569–574.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, P. K., & Væth, M. (1989). Simple parametric and nonparametric models for excess and relative mortality. Biometrika, 45, 523–535.Google Scholar
  3. Berk, R. A. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Review of Sociology, 48, 298–386.Google Scholar
  4. Bloom, D. E., & Killingsworth, M. R. (1985). Correcting for truncation bias caused by a latent truncation variable. Journal of Econometrics, 27, 131–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coale, A. J., Demeny, P., & Vaughan, B. (1983). Regional model life tables in stable populations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coale, A. J., & McNeil, D. R. (1972). The distribution by age of the frequency of first marriage in female cohort. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 67, 743–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalstra, J. A. A., Kunst, A. E., Borrell, C., Breeze, E., Cambios, E., Costa, G., . . . Mackenbach, J. P. (2005). Socioeconomic differences in the prevalence of common chronic diseases: An overview of eight European countries. International Journal of Epidemiology, 34, 316–326.Google Scholar
  8. Diamond, I. D., & McDonald, J. (1991). The analysis of current status data. In J. Trussell, R. Hankinson, & J. Tilton (Eds.), Demographic applications of event history analysis (pp. 231–252). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ederer, F., Axtell, L. M., & Cutler, S. J. (1961). The relative survival rate: A statistical methodology. National Cancer Institute Monographs, 6, 101–121.Google Scholar
  10. Fligstein, N., & Wolf, W. (1978). Sex similarities in occupational status attainment: Are the results due to the restrictions on the sample to employed women? Social Science Research, 7, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goldman, N. (1993). Marriage selection and mortality patterns: Inferences and fallacies. Demography, 30, 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greene, W. H. (1981). Sample selection bias as a specification error: A comment. Econometrica, 49, 795–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hajnal, J. (1953). Age at marriage and proportions marrying. Population Studies, 72, 111–136.Google Scholar
  14. Hajnal, J. (1965). European marriage patterns in perspective. In D. V. Glass & D. E. C. Eversley (Eds.), Population in history: Essays in historical demography (pp. 101–143). London, UK: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  15. Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckman, J., & Singer, B. (1984). A method for minimizing the impact of distributional assumptions in econometric models of duration data. Econometrica, 52, 271–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hougaard, P. (2000). Analysis of multivariate survival data. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hu, Y., & Goldman, N. (1990). Mortality differentials by marital status: An international comparison. Demography, 27, 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jewell, N. P., & Van der Laan, M. J. (2004). Current status data: Review, recent developments and open problems. In N. Balakrishnan & C. R. Rao (Eds.), Handbook of statistics: Advances in survival analysis (pp. 625–643). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  20. Keiding, N. (1991). Age-specific incidence and prevalence: A statistical perspective. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A, 154, 342–371.Google Scholar
  21. Keiding, N. (2006). Event history analysis and the cross-section. Statistics in Medicine, 25, 2343–2364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keiding, N., Begtrup, K., Scheike, T. H., & Hasibeder, G. (1996). Estimation from current-status data in continuous time. Lifetime Data Analysis, 2, 119–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Keiding, N., Holst, C., & Green, A. (1989). Retrospective estimation of diabetes incidence from information in a prevalent population and historical mortality. American Journal of Epidemiology, 130, 588–600.Google Scholar
  24. Kisker, E. E., & Goldman, N. (1987). Perils of single life and benefits of marriage. Social Biology, 34, 125–152.Google Scholar
  25. Lin, D. Y., Oakes, D., & Ying, Z. (1998). Additive hazards regression with current status data. Biometrika, 85, 289–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Little, R. J. A. (1995). Modeling the drop-out mechanism in repeated-measures studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 1112–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Livi-Bacci, M. (1985). Selectivity of marriage and mortality: Notes for future research. In N. Keyfitz (Ed.), Population and biology (pp. 99–108). Liege, Belgium: Ordina Editions.Google Scholar
  28. Maddala, G. S. (1983). Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Manton, K. G., & Stallard, E. (1981). Methods for evaluating the heterogeneity of aging processes in human populations using vital statistics data: Explaining the black/white mortality crossover by a model of mortality selection. Human Biology, 53, 47–67.Google Scholar
  30. McLaren, L. (2007). Socioeconomic status and obesity. Epidemiologic Reviews, 29, 29–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Monteiro, C. A., Conde, W. L., Lu, B., & Popkin, B. M. (2004). Obesity and inequities in health in the developing world. International Journal of Obesity, 28, 1181–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Palloni, A., & Thomas, J. (2011). Estimation of health status inequalities from prevalence data: A risky business (CDE Working Paper No. 2011-09). Madison: Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin.Google Scholar
  33. Popkin, B. M. (1998). The nutrition transition and its health implications in lower-income countries. Public Health Nutrition, 1, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Robbins, J. M., Vaccarino, V., Zhang, H., & Kasl, S. V. (2001). Socioeconomic status and type 2 diabetes in African American and non-Hispanic white women and men: Evidence from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Robbins, J. M., Vaccarino, V., Zhang, H., & Kasl, S. V. (2005). Socioeconomic status and diagnosed diabetes incidence. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, 68, 230–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, J. P. (2007). Nature and causes of trends in male diabetes prevalence, undiagnosed diabetes, and the socioeconomic status health gradient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 13225–13231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sun, J., & Kalbfleish, J. D. (1993). The analysis of current status data on point processes. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 1449–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Trussell, J., & Richards, T. (1985). Correcting for unmeasured heterogeneity in hazard models using the Heckman-Singer procedure. In N. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 242–276). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  39. Trussell, J., & Rodríguez, G. (1990). Heterogeneity in demographic research. In J. Adams, D. Lam, A. Hermalin, & P. Smouse (Eds.), Convergent issues in genetics and demography (pp. 111–132). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Vaupel, J. W., Manton, K. G., & Stallard, E. (1979). The impact of heterogeneity in individual frailty on the dynamics of mortality. Demography, 16, 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vaupel, J. W., & Yashin, A. I. (1985). Heterogeneity’s ruses: Some surprising effects of selection on population dynamics. The American Statistician, 39, 176–185.Google Scholar
  42. Weinberg, C., Baird, D. D., & Rowland, A. S. (1993). Pitfalls inherent in retrospective time-to-event studies: The example of time to pregnancy. Statistics in Medicine, 12, 867–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weinberg, C., Baird, D. D., & Wilcox, A. J. (1994). Sources of bias in studies of time to pregnancy. Statistics in Medicine, 13, 671–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wooldridge, J. M. (1995). Selection corrections for panel data models under conditional mean independence assumptions. Journal of Econometrics, 68, 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Demography and EcologyUniversity of Wisconsin–MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of SociologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations