This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 1055-9965.EPI-07-0441v1 17/4/777    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Jones, R. M. Articles by Yeazel, M. W. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Jones, R. M. Articles by Yeazel, M. W. Related Collections Early Detection Early Detection: Biomarkers: Discovery, Methodology, Validation

Validity of Four Self-reported Colorectal Cancer Screening Modalities in a General Population: Differences over Time and by Intervention Assignment

¹ Department of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Medicine and ² Massey Cancer Center, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia and ³ Division of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health, ⁴ Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, and ⁵ Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, School of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Requests for reprints: Resa M. Jones, Department of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, 1000 East Clay Street, P. O. Box 980212, Richmond, VA 23298. Phone: 804-628-2519; Fax: 804-828-9773. E-mail: rmjones2{at}vcu.edu

Little is known about the validity of self-reported colorectal cancer screening. To date, few published studies have validated all four screening modalities per recommended guidelines or included a general population-based sample, and none has assessed validity over time and by intervention condition. To estimate the validity of self-reported screening, a random sample of 200 adults, ages 50 years, was selected from those completing annual surveys on screening behavior as part of an intervention study. Approximately 60% of the validation sample authorized medical record review. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for baseline and year 1 follow-up reports for each test and for overall screening adherence. Sensitivity at baseline ranged from 86.9% (flexible sigmoidoscopy) to 100% (colonoscopy). Sensitivity at follow-up was slightly lower. Adjusting for validity measures, the sample overreported screening prevalence at baseline for each of the four modalities. At follow-up, overreporting was greatest for fecal occult blood test (13.0%). Overreporting across intervention conditions was highest for fecal occult blood test (10.8% for control; 24.8% for the most intense intervention) and overall screening adherence (10.9% for control; 14.3% for the most intense intervention). Sensitivity and specificity of self-reported colorectal cancer screening compared with medical records were high; however, adjusting self-reported screening rates based on relative error rates reduced screening prevalence estimates. Those exposed to more intense interventions to modify screening behavior seemed more likely to overestimate their screening rates compared with those who were not exposed. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(4):777–84)

This article has been cited by other articles:

				J. G. Zapka Validation of Colorectal Cancer Screening Behaviors Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., April 1, 2008; 17(4): 745 - 747. [Full Text] [PDF]