0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Are self-reports of smoking rate biased? Evidence from the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

      , ,
      Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This study determined evidence for digit preference in self-reports of smoking in the Second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II). Subjects were 4275 adult smokers. Self-reports of smoking showed a marked degree of digit preference, with the vast majority of smokers reporting in multiples of 10 cigarettes per day. When number per day was compared to an objective measure of smoking exposure (carboxyhemoglobin; n = 2070) the distribution was found to be significantly assymetrical. Analysis of the distribution of COHb and various levels of number per day indicates that the differences in distribution are not due to variability in COHb. Heavier smokers, Caucasians, and those with less education were more likely to report a digit preference than lighter smokers. African-Americans, and those with more education. Results suggest that self-reports of number of cigarettes per day may be biased towards round numbers (particularly 20 cigarettes per day). Implications for assessment of smoking behavior are discussed.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
          Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
          Elsevier BV
          08954356
          October 1995
          October 1995
          : 48
          : 10
          : 1225-1233
          Article
          10.1016/0895-4356(95)00020-5
          7561984
          81150c5b-5f12-4cdd-945b-356e48064ebe
          © 1995

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/


          Comments

          Comment on this article