Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 165

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Comparisons of individual- and area-level socioeconomic status as proxies for individual-level measures: evidence from the Mortality Disparities in American Communities study

Moss, Jennifer L., Johnson, Norman J., Yu, Mandi, Altekruse, Sean F., Cronin, Kathleen A.·2021·Population Health Metrics
DOI 10.1186/s12963-020-00244-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: Area-level measures are often used to approximate socioeconomic status (SES) when individual-level data are not available. However, no national studies have examined the validity of these measures in approximating individual-level SES. Methods: Data came from ~ 3,471,000 participants in the Mortality Disparities in American Communities study, which links data from 2008 American Community Survey to National Death Index (through 2015). We calculated correlations, specificity, sensitivity, and odds ratios to summarize the concordance between individual-, census tract-, and county-level SES indicators (e.g., household income, college degree, unemployment). We estimated the association between each SES measure and mortality to illustrate the implications of misclassification for estimates of the SES-mortality association. Results: Participants with high individual-level SES were more likely than other participants to live in high-SES areas. For example, individuals with high household incomes were more likely to live in census tracts ( r = 0.232; odds ratio [OR] = 2.284) or counties ( r = 0.157; OR = 1.325) whose median household income was above the US median. Across indicators, mortality was higher among low-SES groups (all p < .0001). Compared to county-level, census tract-level measures more closely approximated individual-level associations with mortality. Conclusions: Moderate agreement emerged among binary indicators of SES across individual, census tract, and county levels, with increased precision for census tract compared to county measures when approximating individual-level values. When area level measures were used as proxies for individual SES, the SES-mortality associations were systematically underestimated. Studies using area-level SES proxies should use caution when selecting, analyzing, and interpreting associations with health outcomes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12963-020-00244-x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Oakes JM, Rossi PH. The measurement of SES in health research: current practice and steps toward a new approach. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(4):769–84. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Powers MG. Measures of socioeconomic status: an introduction. Measures Socioeconomic Status; 1982. p. 1–28.
  3. Krieger N, Williams DR, Moss NE. Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annual Review of Public Health. 1997;18:341–78. · DOI
  4. Buell P, Dunn JE, Breslow L. The occupational-social class risks of cancer mortality in men. J Chronic Dis. 1960;12(6):600–21. · DOI
  5. Freeman HP. Cancer in the socioeconomically disadvantaged. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 1989;39(5):266–88.
  6. Adler NE, Boyce WT, Chesney MA, Folkman S, Syme SL. Socioeconomic inequalities in health: no easy solution. Jama. 1993;269(24):3140–5. · DOI
  7. Subramanian SV, Kawachi I. Income inequality and health: what have we learned so far? Epidemiol Rev. 2004;26:78–91. · DOI
  8. Boscoe FP, Henry KA, Sherman RL, Johnson CJ. The relationship between cancer incidence, stage and poverty in the United States. International Journal of Cancer. 2016;139(3):607–12. · DOI
  9. Moore JC, Welniak EJ. Income measurement error in surveys: a review. J Official Stat. 2000;16(4):331.
  10. Chen JT, Kaddour A, Krieger N. Implications of missing income data. Public Health Rep. 2008;123(3):260. · DOI
  11. Krieger N. Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical records: validation and application of a census-based methodology. American Journal of Public Health. 1992;82(5):703–10. · DOI
  12. Kish JK, Yu M, Percy-Laurry A, Altekruse SF. Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer survival by neighborhood socioeconomic status in Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Registries. Journal of the National Cancer InstituteMonographs. 2014;2014(49):236–43. · DOI
  13. Cubbin C, Hadden WC, Winkleby MA. Neighborhood context and cardiovascular disease risk factors: the contribution of material deprivation. Ethnic Dis. 2001;11(4):687–700.
  14. Diez Roux AV. Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. American Journal of Public Health. 2001;91(11):1783–9. · DOI
  15. Ellen IG, Mijanovich T, Dillman KN. Neighborhood effects on health: exploring the links and assessing the evidence. J Urban Affair. 2001;23(3-4):391–408. · DOI
  16. Hanley GE, Morgan S. On the validity of area-based income measures to proxy household income. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:79 -6963-8-79. · DOI
  17. Geronimus AT, Bound J, Neidert LJ. On the validity of using census geocode characteristics to proxy individual socioeconomic characteristics. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1996;91(434):529–37. · DOI
  18. Gomes FS, Vasconcellos MT, Anjos LA. The use of income information of census enumeration area as a proxy for the household income in a household survey. Population Health Metrics. 2009;7:14 -7954-7-14. · DOI
  19. Conroy SM, Shariff-Marco S, Koo J, Yang J, Keegan TH, Sangaramoorthy M, et al. Racial/ethnic differences in the impact of neighborhood social and built environment on breast cancer risk: the Neighborhoods and Breast Cancer Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarker Prev. 2017;26(4):541–52. · DOI
  20. Kaiser P, Auchincloss AH, Moore K, Sanchez BN, Berrocal V, Allen N, et al. Associations of neighborhood socioeconomic and racial/ethnic characteristics with changes in survey-based neighborhood quality, 2000-2011. Health & Place. 2016;42:30–6. · DOI
  21. Hastert TA, Beresford SA, Sheppard L, White E. Disparities in cancer incidence and mortality by area-level socioeconomic status: a multilevel analysis. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2015;69(2):168–76. · DOI
  22. Diez-Roux AV, Kiefe CI, Jacobs DR Jr, Haan M, Jackson SA, Nieto FJ, et al. Area characteristics and individual-level socioeconomic position indicators in three population-based epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2001;11(6):395–405. · DOI
  23. Thomas AJ, Eberly LE, Davey Smith G, Neaton JD. Multiple risk factor intervention trial research G. ZIP-code-based versus tract-based income measures as long-term risk-adjusted mortality predictors. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;164(6):586–90. · DOI
  24. Lovasi GS, Moudon AV, Smith NL, Lumley T, Larson EB, Sohn DW, et al. Evaluating options for measurement of neighborhood socioeconomic context: evidence from a myocardial infarction case-control study. Health & place. 2008;14(3):453–67. · DOI
  25. Yin D, Morris C, Allen M, Cress R, Bates J, Liu L. Does socioeconomic disparity in cancer incidence vary across racial/ethnic groups? Cancer Causes & Control : CCC. 2010;21(10):1721–30. · DOI
  26. Wan N, Zhan FB, Cai Z. Socioeconomic disparities in prostate cancer mortality and the impact of geographic scale. Southern Medical Journal. 2011;104(8):553–9. · DOI
  27. Roblin DW. Validation of a neighborhood SES index in a managed care organization. Medical Care. 2013;51(1):e1–8. · DOI
  28. Pardo-Crespo MR, Narla NP, Williams AR, Beebe TJ, Sloan J, Yawn BP, et al. Comparison of individual-level versus area-level socioeconomic measures in assessing health outcomes of children in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2013;67(4):305–10. · DOI · Paper page
  29. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, Soobader MJ, Subramanian SV, Carson R. Geocoding and monitoring of US socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter?: the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2002;156(5):471–82. · DOI
  30. Galobardes B, Shaw M, Lawlor DA, Smith GD, Lynch J. Indicators of socioeconomic position. In: Oakes JM, Kaufman JS, editors. Methods in social epidemiology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2006. p. 47–85.
  31. Robinson WS. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2009;38(2):337–41. · DOI · Paper page
  32. Piantadosi S, Byar DP, Green SB. The ecological fallacy. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1988;127(5):893–904. · DOI
  33. Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Chideya S, Marchi KS, Metzler M, et al. Socioeconomic status in health research: one size does not fit all. Jama. 2005;294(22):2879–88. · DOI
  34. Nkosi TM, Parent ME, Siemiatycki J, Pintos J, Rousseau MC. Comparison of indicators of material circumstances in the context of an epidemiological study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:108 -2288-11-108. · DOI
  35. Southern DA, Ghali WA, Faris PD, Norris CM, Galbraith PD, Graham MM, et al. Misclassification of income quintiles derived from area-based measures. A comparison of enumeration area and forward sortation area. Can J Public Health. 2002;93(6):465–9. · DOI
  36. Tapia Granados JA, House JS, Ionides EL, Burgard S, Schoeni RS. Individual joblessness, contextual unemployment, and mortality risk. Am J Epidemiol. 2014;180(3):280–7. · DOI
  37. Macintyre S, Ellaway A, Cummins S. Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(1):125–39. · DOI
  38. Anderson RT, Sorlie P, Backlund E, Johnson N, Kaplan GA. Mortality effects of community socioeconomic status. Epidemiology. 1997;8(1):42–7. · DOI
  39. Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J. Bias. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2004;58(8):635–41. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 165

Metadata

Authors
Moss, J. L., Johnson, N. J., Yu, M., Altekruse, S. F., & Cronin, K. A.
Venue
Population Health Metrics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-01-07
Volume
19
Issue
1
ISSN
1478-7954
DOI
10.1186/s12963-020-00244-x
Cited by
165
References
0
Language
en
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparisons of individual- and area-level socioeconomic status as proxies for individual-level measures: evidence from the Mortality Disparities in American Communities study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s12963-020-00244-x
The paper
Moss, J. L., Johnson, N. J., Yu, M., Altekruse, S. F., & Cronin, K. A. (2021). Comparisons of individual- and area-level socioeconomic status as proxies for individual-level measures: evidence from the Mortality Disparities in American Communities study. Population Health Metrics. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-020-00244-x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.