Validation of self-reported proximity to agricultural crops in a case–control study of neural tube defects

Self-reported perinatal exposures to chemicals or pollutant sources in case–control studies of birth defects may be inaccurate due to misreporting among mothers. In a case–control study of neural tube defects delivered in California in 1987–1988, mothers of case and control infants were asked whether they lived within 0.25 mile (400 m) of agricultural crops. Responses were compared against a gold standard derived from historical agricultural land-use survey maps. The odds ratio for self-reported proximity to any crops (1.62, 95% confidence interval: 1.08, 2.43) appeared to be positively biased compared with the estimate for map-based proximity (1.17, 95% confidence interval: 0.79, 1.71). This pattern was also observed for proximity to specific crops such as nonpermanent and orchard crops. For vineyards, however, we observed an increased risk associated with map-based proximity (odds ratio=2.45, 95% confidence interval: 1.08, 5.58) but not with self-reported proximity (1.09, 95% confidence interval: 0.51, 2.34). The sensitivity of self-reported proximity to any crops was greater for case (65.7%) than control mothers (50.0%) while specificity was about the same for case and control mothers (87.5 vs. 89.3%), suggesting that control mothers under-reported proximity to crops. Differential reporting was also observed between geographic regions, urban and rural residents, and across levels of maternal employment and education. These results suggest differential reporting between case and control mothers as well as an influence from maternal demographic characteristics on reporting accuracy.