Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 23, Issue 7, pp 1953–1965 | Cite as

Comparing self and maternal reports of adolescents’ general health status: Do self and proxy reports differ in their relationships with covariates?

  • Dana GarbarskiEmail author
Article

Abstract

Purpose

Given that mothers often—but do not always—report children’s health status in surveys, it is essential to gain an understanding of whether the relationship between children’s general health status and relevant covariates depends on who reports children’s general health status.

Methods

Using data from the first wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Youth 1997 cohort (N = 6,466), a nationally representative sample of adolescents in the United States ages 12 to 17 in 1997, the study first examined the concordance between self and maternal reports of adolescents’ general health status. Then, self and maternal reports of adolescents’ general health status were each regressed on health-relevant covariates, and tests of differences in coefficients across the models were estimated.

Results

Self and maternal reports of adolescents’ general health status are moderately concordant. Furthermore, the associations of adolescents’ general health status with adolescent BMI and the adolescent being female significantly differ across reporters, such that the negative relationships are even more negative with self compared to maternal reports of adolescents’ general health status. The associations of adolescents’ general health status with the measures of adolescents’ health limitations, maternal self-rated health, and certain sociodemographic covariates differ across reporters, such that each has a greater relationship with maternal compared to self-reports of adolescents’ general health status.

Conclusion

The results are important for interpreting research on the causes and consequences of child and adolescent health, as results across studies may not be comparable if the reporter is not the same.

Keywords

Self-rated health General health status Adolescent health Proxy reports Surveys 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (T32 HD007014, T32 HD049302) and from core funding to the Center for Demography and Ecology (R24 HD047873) and Center for Demography of Health and Aging (P30 AG017266) at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. A version of this study was presented at the 2013 meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. The author thanks the following people for helpful comments during the course of this project: Jennifer Dykema, Felix Elwert, Theodore Gerber, Jennifer Holland, Alberto Palloni, Nora Cate Schaeffer, Kia Sorensen, Kimberly Turner, and Whitney Witt. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or official views of the helpful commentators, funding agencies, or the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which collects and distributes the NLSY 1997 data.

References

  1. 1.
    Moore, J. C. (1988). Self/proxy response status and survey response quality. Journal of Official Statistics, 4(2), 155–172.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chang, P.-C., & Yeh, C.-H. (2005). Agreement between child self-report and parent proxy-report to evaluate quality of life in children with cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 14(2), 125–134.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eiser, C., Mohay, H., & Morse, R. (2000). The measurement of quality of life in young children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 26(5), 401–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wallander, J. L., Schmitt, M., & Koot, H. M. (2001). Quality of life measurement in children and adolescents: Issues, instruments, and applications. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(4), 571–585.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baca, C. B., Vickrey, B. G., Hays, R. D., Vassar, S. D., & Berg, A. T. (2010). Differences in child versus parent reports of the child’s health-related quality of life in children with epilepsy and healthy siblings. Value in Health: The Journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 13(6), 778–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eiser, C., & Morse, R. (2001). Can parents rate their child’s health-related quality of life? Results of a systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 10(4), 347–357.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fosse, N. E., & Haas, S. A. (2009). Validity and stability of self-reported health among adolescents in a longitudinal, Nationally Representative Survey. Pediatrics, 123(3), e496–e501.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Theunissen, N. C. M., Vogels, T. G. C., Koopman, H. M., Verrips, G. H. W., Zwinderman, K. A. H., Verloove-Vanhorick, S. P., et al. (1998). The proxy problem: Child report versus parent report in health-related quality of life research. Quality of Life Research, 7(5), 387–397.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38(1), 21–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, E. A., & Leventhal, H. (1999). Self-assessments of health. Research on Aging, 21(3), 477–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Benyamini, Y., Leventhal, E. A., & Leventhal, H. (2000). Gender differences in processing information for making self-assessments of health”. Psychosomatic Medicine, 62(3), 354–364.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Garbarski, D., Schaeffer, N. C., & Dykema, J. (2011). Are interactional behaviors exhibited when the self-reported health question is asked associated with health status? Social Science Research, 40(4), 1025–1036.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Johnson, S. B., & Wang, C. (2008). Why do adolescents say they are less healthy than their parents think they are? The importance of mental health varies by social class in a nationally representative sample. Pediatrics, 121(2), e307–e313.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vingilis, E., Wade, T. J., & Adlaf, E. (1998). What factors predict student self-rated physical health? Journal of Adolescence, 21(1), 83–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shaffer, D., Gould, M. S., Brasic, J., Ambrosini, P., Fisher, P., Bird, H., et al. (1983). A children’s global assessment scale (CGAS). Archives of General Psychiatry, 40(11), 1228–1231.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Waters, E., Stewart-Brown, S., & Fitzpatrick, R. (n.d.). Agreement between adolescent self‐report and parent reports of health and well‐being: Results of an epidemiological study. Child: Care, Health and Development, 29(6), 501–509.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weissman, M. M., Wickramaratne, P., Warner, V., John, K., Prusoff, B. A., Merikangas, K. R., et al. (1987). Assessing psychiatric disorders in children: Discrepancies between mothers’ and children’s reports. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44(8), 747–753.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moore, W., Pedlow, S., Krishnamurty, P., & Wolter, K. (2000). National longitudinal survey of youth 1997 (NLSY97). Technical sampling report: National Opinion Research Center.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics. CDC Growth Charts. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/growthcharts/cdc_charts.htm. Accessibility verified November 20, 2013.
  20. 20.
    Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Perneger, T. V., Gayet-Ageron, A., Courvoisier, D. S., Agoritsas, T., & Cullati, S. (2013). Self-rated health: Analysis of distances and transitions between response options. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0418-5.
  23. 23.
    Weesie, J. (1999). Seemingly unrelated estimation and the cluster-adjusted sandwich estimator. Stata Technical Bulletin, 52, 34–47.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feinstein, A. R., & Cicchetti, D. V. (1990). High agreement but low kappa: I. The problems of two paradoxes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 43(6), 543–549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bucchianeri, M. M., Eisenberg, M. E., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2013). Weightism, racism, classism, and sexism: Shared forms of harassment in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 53(1), 47–53.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Raina, P., et al. (2004). Caregiving process and caregiver burden: Conceptual models to guide research and practice. BMC Pediatrics, 4(1), 1.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Cleave, J., Gortmaker, S. L., & Perrin, J. M. (2010). Dynamics of obesity and chronic health conditions among children and youth. JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, 303(7), 623–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Women’s Health and Health Disparities ResearchUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations