Brief Report
Discrepancy among Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Social Security, and functional disability measurement

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2011.08.004Get rights and content

Section snippets

Methods and materials

This study posed the 2 BRFSS disability questions as part of a 69-item survey mailed in June 2009 to participants in the Kansas Medicaid Buy-In program in order to investigate the sensitivity of the questions among those with SSA-determined disabilities. The survey was sent to 1049 people with a 38% return rate; 31 respondents did not answer the BRFSS questions, resulting in a study sample of 368.

Nationally, participants in Medicaid Buy-Ins must meet the SSA definition of disability and have

Results

Within our sample of working-age adults with SSA-determined disabilities, the BRFSS disability questions had a sensitivity of 80.7%; 19.3% would not have been included in the state’s BRFSS disability prevalence estimate. People within all disability-type categories screened less than 100% on the 2 BRFSS questions (Table 1). A chi-square test demonstrated significant differences in negative response rates by disability type (χ2 = 24.227, df = 7, p < .001). People with physical disabilities and

Discussion

The BRFSS questions are intended to identify and track health and risk behaviors. Survey instruments ideally use methods that are quick, low-cost, and repeatable, yet they must balance efficiency with accuracy to serve their purpose. We expect that such instruments as the BRFSS should meet empirical psychometric qualities of reliability and validity.

The SSA definition of disability is quite restricted in its focus on substantial work limitation and is recognized as applying to people with

Conclusion

Data collected under Section 4302 of the ACA will be used to monitor health disparities and quality of care among people with disabilities. Our findings indicate that BRFSS questions would not fully identify this entire population. Currently, questions from the ACS are proposed as the minimum standard for use under Section 4302 [14]. The ACS, with its focus on functional queries is a good foundation but, as our study indicates, additional questions that specifically address intellectual

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (16)

  • S. McDermott et al.

    The myth and reality of disablity prevalence: measuring disability for research and service

    Disability and Health Journal

    (2011)
  • M. Fox et al.

    Determining paralysis prevalence in the United States

    Disability and Health Journal

    (2008)
  • S. Gross et al.

    Disability statistics for the states: The American Community Survey and the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Abstract 206194

    APHA

    (2009)
  • S. Kinne et al.

    Inclusion of people with disabilities in telephone health surveillance surveys

    Am J Public Health

    (2005)
  • E. Andresen et al.

    Reliablity and validity of disability questions for US Census 2000

    Am J Public Health

    (2000)
  • U.S. Census Bureau. 2009 American Community Survey – 1 year estimates. Available at:...
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Data. Atlanta,...
  • B. Armour et al.

    State-level prevalence of cigarette smoking and treatment advice, by disability status, United States, 2004

    Prev Chronic Dis

    (2007)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (18)

  • Prevalence and patterns of youth responses to standard disability survey questions

    2022, Disability and Health Journal
    Citation Excerpt :

    Since the ACA mandate for standardized data collection, an increasing number of federal surveys now measure disability among adults with a consistent set of questions. There is ongoing discussion as to how accurately these identifiers enumerate all people with disabilities.11–14 Still, employing a standard set of questions reduces variability across data sources and moves the field closer to a reliable measure of this complex and dynamic construct.

  • A cross-sectional analysis of trust of information and COVID-19 preventative practices among people with disabilities

    2021, Disability and Health Journal
    Citation Excerpt :

    Approximately 21% of respondents did not endorse any WGSS items after answering yes to initial disability screening questions. We retained respondents who did not endorse any WGSS items because past research has found that measures of functional disability undercount certain disability types including mental disabilities,35 which are over-represented in MTurk disability samples.36–39 Table 1 compares disability rates across metro, micro, and noncore counties.

  • Underrepresentation of adolescents with respiratory, mental health, and developmental disabilities using American Community Survey (ACS) questions

    2018, Disability and Health Journal
    Citation Excerpt :

    In this study, those with mental illnesses, chronic illnesses, intellectual disabilities, sensory disabilities, learning disabilities, and HIV/AIDS were often not identified by two broad BRFSS questions including “Are you limited in any way because of a physical, mental or emotional problem?” and “Do you now have any health problem that requires you to use special equipment, such as a cane, a wheelchair, a special bed, or a special telephone?”8 Another potential issue relates to the ACS question “Because of a physical, mental or emotional problem, do you have difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions?”

  • Response letter to J.Hall et al.

    2017, Disability and Health Journal
View all citing articles on Scopus

The research was funded by the Kansas Health Policy Authority (#KHPA2007-055) through a grant from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The authors have no direct or indirect financial or personal relationships, interests, and affiliations relevant to the subject matter of this manuscript that have occurred over the last two years, or that are expected in the foreseeable future.

View full text