Journal article
Comparing a single-stage geocoding method to a multi-stage geocoding method: how much and where do they disagree?
International journal of health geographics, v 6(1), pp 12-12
16 Mar 2007
PMID: 17367520
Featured in Collection : UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel
Abstract
Background: Geocoding methods vary among spatial epidemiology studies. Errors in the geocoding process and differential match rates may reduce study validity. We compared two geocoding methods using 8,157 Washington State addresses. The multi-stage geocoding method implemented by the state health department used a sequence of local and national reference files. The single-stage method used a single national reference file. For each address geocoded by both methods, we measured the distance between the locations assigned by each method. Area-level characteristics were collected from census data, and modeled as predictors of the discordance between geocoded address coordinates.
Results: The multi-stage method had a higher match rate than the single-stage method: 99% versus 95%. Of 7,686 addresses were geocoded by both methods, 96% were geocoded to the same census tract by both methods and 98% were geocoded to locations within 1 km of each other by the two methods. The distance between geocoded coordinates for the same address was higher in sparsely populated and low poverty areas, and counties with local reference files.
Conclusion: The multi-stage geocoding method had a higher match rate than the single-stage method. An examination of differences in the location assigned to the same address suggested that study results may be most sensitive to the choice of geocoding method in sparsely populated or low-poverty areas.
Metrics
Details
- Title
- Comparing a single-stage geocoding method to a multi-stage geocoding method: how much and where do they disagree?
- Creators
- Gina S. Lovasi - Columbia UniversityJeremy C. Weiss - University of WashingtonRichard Hoskins - Washington State Department of HealthEric A. Whitsel - University of North CarolinaKenneth Rice - University of WashingtonCraig F. Erickson - Washington State Dept Hlth, Olympia, WA USABruce M. Psaty - University of Washington
- Publication Details
- International journal of health geographics, v 6(1), pp 12-12
- Publisher
- Springer Nature
- Number of pages
- 11
- Grant note
- R01-AG09556; R01 AG009556 / NIA NIH HHS; United States Department of Health & Human Services; National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA; NIH National Institute on Aging (NIA) R01-HL043201; R01 HL043201; T32-HL07902; R01-HL068639; R01 HL068639; T32 HL007902 / NHLBI NIH HHS; United States Department of Health & Human Services; National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA; NIH National Heart Lung & Blood Institute (NHLBI) T32HL007902 / NATIONAL HEART, LUNG, AND BLOOD INSTITUTE; United States Department of Health & Human Services; National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA; NIH National Heart Lung & Blood Institute (NHLBI) R01AG009556 / NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING; United States Department of Health & Human Services; National Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA; NIH National Institute on Aging (NIA)
- Resource Type
- Journal article
- Language
- English
- Academic Unit
- Urban Health Collaborative
- Web of Science ID
- WOS:000258120700001
- Scopus ID
- 2-s2.0-35448971710
- Other Identifier
- 991020100091404721
UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:
InCites Highlights
Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:
- Collaboration types
- Domestic collaboration
- Web of Science research areas
- Public, Environmental & Occupational Health