title: Test-retest reliability of self-reported diabetes diagnosis in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study: A population-based longitudinal study (n =33,919).
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Self-reported information from questionnaires is frequently used in epidemiological studies, but few of these studies provide information on the reproducibility of individual items contained in the questionnaire. We studied the test-retest reliability of self-reported diabetes among 33,919 participants in Norwegian Women and Cancer Study.
  
  
  METHODS
  The test-retest reliability of self-reported type 1 and type 2 diabetes diagnoses was evaluated between three self-administered questionnaires (completed in 1991, 1998, and 2005 by Norwegian Women and Cancer participants) by kappa agreement. The time interval between the test-retest studies was ~7 and ~14 years. Sensitivity of the kappa agreement for type 1 and type 2 diabetes diagnoses was assessed. Subgroup analysis was performed to assess whether test-retest reliability varies with age, body mass index, physical activity, education, and smoking status.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The kappa agreement for both types of self-reported diabetes diagnoses combined was good (⩾0.65) for all three test-retest studies (1991-1998, 1991-2005, and 1998-2005). The kappa agreement for type 1 diabetes was good (⩾0.73) in the 1991-2005 and the 1998-2005 test-retest studies, and very good (0.83) in the 1991-1998 test-retest study. The kappa agreement for type 2 diabetes was moderate (0.57) in the 1991-2005 test-retest study and good (⩾0.66) in the 1991-1998 and 1998-2005 test-retest studies. The overall kappa agreement in the 1991-1998 test-retest study was stronger than in the 1991-2005 test-retest study and the 1998-2005 test-retest study. There was no clear pattern of inconsistency in the kappa agreements within different strata of age, BMI, physical activity, and smoking. The kappa agreement was strongest among the respondents with 17 or more years of education, while generally it was weaker among the least educated group.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The test-retest reliability of the diabetes was acceptable and there was no clear pattern of inconsistency in the kappa agreement stratified by age, body mass index, physical activity, and smoking. The study suggests that self-reported diabetes diagnosis from middle-aged women enrolled in the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study is reliable.
authors.affiliation: Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.
authors.forename: Mashhood Ahmed
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Sheikh
authors.affiliation: Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.
authors.forename: Eiliv
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Lund
authors.affiliation: Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.
authors.forename: Tonje
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Braaten
keywords: Kvinner og kreft; Norway; Norwegian Women and Cancer; Type 2 diabetes; kappa; metabolic syndrome; questionnaires; reproducibility; test–retest reliability; type 1 diabetes
references.citation: Neuroepidemiology. 1999;18(4):174-84
references.pmid: 10364718
references.citation: Aust N Z J Public Health. 1999 Oct;23(5):528-30
references.pmid: 10575777
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 2000 Feb 1;151(3):315-23
references.pmid: 10670557
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Sep;54(9):902-6
references.pmid: 11520649
references.citation: Eur J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jan;57(1):107-13
references.pmid: 12548305
references.citation: Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Apr 15;28(8):828-33
references.pmid: 12698128
references.citation: Cancer Causes Control. 2003 Dec;14(10):1001-8
references.pmid: 14750540
references.citation: J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992 Oct;46(5):537-42
references.pmid: 1479327
references.citation: Diabet Med. 2004 Feb;21(2):103-13
references.pmid: 14984444
references.citation: Med Care. 2005 Jan;43(1):93-7
references.pmid: 15626939
references.citation: Eur Spine J. 2005 Dec;14(10):1000-7
references.pmid: 15843969
references.citation: Nutr J. 2006 Jan 31;5:4
references.pmid: 16448553
references.citation: Public Health Nutr. 2007 Oct;10(10):1094-103
references.pmid: 17381903
references.citation: Int J Epidemiol. 2008 Feb;37(1):36-41
references.pmid: 17644530
references.citation: Pediatr Diabetes. 2007 Dec;8 Suppl 9:7-15
references.pmid: 17991128
references.citation: Melanoma Res. 2008 Feb;18(1):1-9
references.pmid: 18227701
references.citation: Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2008 May;80(2):314-20
references.pmid: 18279994
references.citation: Metab Syndr Relat Disord. 2007 Sep;5(3):282-9
references.pmid: 18370783
references.citation: Rev Esp Cardiol. 2009 Feb;62(2):143-52
references.pmid: 19232187
references.citation: Stat Med. 2011 Feb 20;30(4):377-99
references.pmid: 21225900
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Oct 28;11:146
references.pmid: 22035202
references.citation: BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 Feb 21;13:26
references.pmid: 22353558
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Oct 15;176(8):738-43
references.pmid: 23013620
references.citation: Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2013 May;33(2):199-212
references.pmid: 23157665
references.citation: Matern Child Nutr. 2015 Jan;11(1):20-32
references.pmid: 23241065
references.citation: J Voice. 2013 Mar;27(2):258.e29-258.e33
references.pmid: 23280381
references.citation: Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013 May;52(5):924-32
references.pmid: 23335634
references.citation: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 Jul;65(7):1043-51
references.pmid: 23401461
references.citation: BMC Psychiatry. 2013 Mar 22;13:99
references.pmid: 23521746
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2013 Dec;22(10):2809-12
references.pmid: 23605747
references.citation: BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Sep;22(9):743-51
references.pmid: 23674692
references.citation: Int J Epidemiol. 1990 Jun;19(2):349-53
references.pmid: 2376446
references.citation: Psychother Res. 2014;24(4):504-13
references.pmid: 24188797
references.citation: BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014 Mar 12;15:78
references.pmid: 24618360
references.citation: J Clin Nurs. 2015 Feb;24(3-4):406-14
references.pmid: 24787347
references.citation: Nord J Psychiatry. 2015 Jan;69(1):35-41
references.pmid: 24848784
references.citation: J Rehabil Med. 2014 Sep;46(8):781-7
references.pmid: 25117176
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 2015 Feb;24(2):417-25
references.pmid: 25120017
references.citation: Lipids Health Dis. 2014 Oct 24;13:164
references.pmid: 25344292
references.citation: BMC Public Health. 2014 Nov 18;14:1172
references.pmid: 25404212
references.citation: BMC Res Notes. 2015 Jan 24;8:16
references.pmid: 25616767
references.citation: Nord J Psychiatry. 2015;69(7):509-14
references.pmid: 25698304
references.citation: Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Nov;98(11):1410-7
references.pmid: 26146239
references.citation: Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jul 02;7:313-23
references.pmid: 26170718
references.citation: Food Nutr Res. 2015 Aug 11;59:28397
references.pmid: 26268707
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 1989 Feb;129(2):233-48
references.pmid: 2643301
references.citation: BMC Psychiatry. 2015 Oct 06;15:234
references.pmid: 26444263
references.citation: SAGE Open Med. 2015 Feb 24;3:2050312114568476
references.pmid: 26770763
references.citation: SAGE Open Med. 2015 Oct 09;3:2050312115610129
references.pmid: 26770806
references.citation: Scand J Pain. 2017 Dec 29;5(1):28-33
references.pmid: 29913660
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1982 Dec 23;307(26):1611-7
references.pmid: 7144848
references.citation: J Epidemiol Community Health. 1982 Dec;36(4):269-73
references.pmid: 7166682
references.citation: Epidemiology. 1994 Sep;5(5):545-9
references.pmid: 7986871
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Feb;46(2):181-91
references.pmid: 8437034
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 May;49(5):511-7
references.pmid: 8636724
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Dec;49(12):1407-17
references.pmid: 8970491
references.citation: Eur J Clin Nutr. 1997 Jun;51(6):346-53
references.pmid: 9192190
references.citation: Med Care. 1997 Sep;35(9):932-47
references.pmid: 9298082