Using aggregate geographic data to proxy individual socioeconomic status: does size matter?

OBJECTIVES This study assessed whether aggregate-level measures of socioeconomic status (SES) are less biased as proxies for individual-level measures if the unit of geographic aggregation is small in size and population. METHODS National Health Interview Survey and census data were used to replicate analyses that identified the degree to which aggregate proxies of individual SES bias interpretations of the effects of SES on health. RESULTS Ordinary least squares regressions on self-perceived health showed that the coefficients for income and education measured at the tract and block group levels were larger than those at the individual level but smaller than those estimated by Geronimus et al. at the zip code level. CONCLUSIONS Researchers should be cautious about use of proxy measurement of individual SES even if proxies are calculated from small geographic units.

[1]  N. Krieger.  Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic data in medical records: validation and application of a census-based methodology. , 1992, American journal of public health.

[2]  N. Krieger.  Social class and the black/white crossover in the age-specific incidence of breast cancer: a study linking census-derived data to population-based registry records. , 1990, American journal of epidemiology.

[3]  N. Krieger,et al.  Measuring social inequalities in health. Report on the Conference of the National Institutes of Health. , 1995, Public health reports.

[4]  J. Danesh,et al.  Postcodes as useful markers of social class: population based study in 26 000 British households. , 1999, BMJ.

[5]  N. Krieger,et al.  Women and social class: a methodological study comparing individual, household, and census measures as predictors of black/white differences in reproductive history. , 1991, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[6]  F. LeClere,et al.  Neighborhood social context and racial differences in women's heart disease mortality. , 1998, Journal of health and social behavior.

[7]  David R. Williams,et al.  Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. , 1997, Annual review of public health.

[8]  P. F. Adams,et al.  Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 1994. , 1995, Vital and health statistics. Series 10, Data from the National Health Survey.

[9]  P. Sorlie,et al.  Mortality Effects of Community Socioeconomic Status , 1997, Epidemiology.

[10]  N. Polissar,et al.  Detecting survival effects of socioeconomic status: problems in the use of aggregate measures. , 1994, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

[11]  F. LeClere,et al.  Ethnicity and Mortality in the United States: Individual and Community Correlates , 1997 .

[12]  John Bound,et al.  On the Validity of Using Census Geocode Characteristics to Proxy Individual Socioeconomic Characteristics , 1995 .

[13]  K. Smith,et al.  Phantom of the area: poverty-area residence and mortality in the United States. , 1998, American journal of public health.

[14]  R. Donovan,et al.  Misclassification of social disadvantage based on geographical areas: comparison of postcode and collector's district analyses. , 1995, International journal of epidemiology.

[15]  J Bound,et al.  Use of census-based aggregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evidence from national samples. , 1998, American journal of epidemiology.