IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v29y1989i11p1243-1248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparisons between the self-assessed and observer-assessed presence and severity of colds

Author

Listed:
  • Macintyre, Sally
  • Pritchard, Colin

Abstract

The hypotheses that self-reported symptoms are a valid proxy for physicians' ratings, and that people with different social characteristics mayvary in their recognition and evaluation of symptoms, were tested on volunteers attending the MRC Common Cold Unit. Eleven-hundred volunteers assessed the presence and severity of colds at the end of their stay at the unit, using the same two measures as a trained clinical observer (all ratings were double blind). On both measures there was an extremely high correlation between self- and observer-assessments, a finding encouraging for those using self-reports in community surveys. Although this high level of agreement was found within all the age, sex, occupational class and marital status groups, men were significantly more likely than women to over-rate their symptoms in comparison with the clinical observer. No such differences in over-rating were found by age, class or marital status. This finding of a sex difference in the tendency to over-rate physical symptoms is of major significance to theories of illness behaviour, and is particularly convincing because it is based on a double-blind comparison between self-reports and assessments made by a doctor.

Suggested Citation

  • Macintyre, Sally & Pritchard, Colin, 1989. "Comparisons between the self-assessed and observer-assessed presence and severity of colds," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 1243-1248, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:29:y:1989:i:11:p:1243-1248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(89)90063-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:29:y:1989:i:11:p:1243-1248. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.