Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of Proxies and Informants

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Epidemiology of Aging

Abstract

A proxy or informant is an individual who provides reports on behalf of, or about, a study participant. Proxies are essential in studies of older adults for minimizing selection bias and preserving external validity. Important items to consider when designing studies that will use proxies include determining the wording of questions, determining how the proxies will be selected, determining the proxy perspective, and selecting appropriate analytical methods. Future research directions on the use of proxies include the development of new analytical methods. In summary, the use of proxies should be thoughtful, well-documented, reported in results, and—wherever possible—assessed for bias in the populations and domains that are utilized in the studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 229.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 299.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

ADL:

Activities of Daily Living

BMI:

Body Mass Index

CCC:

Concordance Correlation Coefficient

FDA:

Food and Drug Administration

ICC:

Interclass Correlation Coefficient

NeuroQOL:

Quality-Of-Life in Neurological Disorders

NHIS:

National Health Interview Survey

NIH:

National Institutes of Health

NPHS:

Canadian National Population Health Surveys

PROMIS:

Patient Reported Outcomes Measure­ment Information System

PROs:

Patient-Reported Outcomes

US:

United States

References

  1. Lynn Snow A, Cook KF, Lin PS et al (2005) Proxies and other external raters: methodological considerations. Health Serv Res 40(5):1676–1693

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pickard AS, Knight SJ (2005) Proxy evaluation of health-related quality of life: a conceptual framework for understanding multiple proxy perspectives. Med Care 43(5):493–499

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Neumann PJ, Araki SS, Gutterman EM (2000) The use of proxy respondents in studies of older adults: lessons, challenges, and opportunities. J Am Geriatr Soc 48(12):1646–1654

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Long K, Sudha S, Mutran EJ (1998) Elder-proxy agreement concerning the functional status and medical history of the older person: the impact of caregiver burden and depressive symptomatology. J Am Geriatr Soc 46(9):1103–1111

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Shields M (2000) Proxy reporting in the National Population Health Survey. Health Rep 12(1):21–39 (Eng); 23–44 (Fre)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Perruccio AV, Badley EM (2004) Proxy reporting and the increasing prevalence of arthritis in Canada. Can J Public Health 95(3):169–173

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Elliott MN, Beckett MK, Chong K et al (2008) How do proxy responses and proxy-assisted responses differ from what Medicare beneficiaries might have reported about their health care? Health Serv Res 43(3):833–848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Magaziner J (1992) The use of proxy respondents in health studies of the aged. In: Wallace RB, Woolson RF (eds) The epidemiologic study of the elderly. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 120–129

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kuczmarski MF, Kuczmarski RJ, Najjar M (2001) Effects of age on validity of self-reported height, weight, and body mass index: findings from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988–1994. J Am Diet Assoc 101(1):28–34; quiz 35–36

    Google Scholar 

  10. Reither EN, Utz RL (2009) A procedure to correct proxy-reported weight in the National Health Interview Survey, 1976–2002. Popul Health Metr 7:2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Quinn C, Haber MJ, Pan Y (2009) Use of the concordance correlation coefficient when examining agreement in dyadic research. Nurs Res 58(5):368–373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Magaziner J, Simonsick EM, Kashner TM et al (1988) Patient-proxy response comparability on measures of patient health and functional status. J Clin Epidemiol 41(11):1065–1074

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Magaziner J, Bassett SS, Hebel JR et al (1996) Use of proxies to measure health and functional status in epidemiologic studies of community-dwelling women aged 65 years and older. Am J Epidemiol 143(3):283–292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Hung SY, Pickard AS, Witt WP et al (2007) Pain and depression in caregivers affected their perception of pain in stroke patients. J Clin Epidemiol 60(9):963–970

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Teri L, Wagner AW (1991) Assessment of depression in patients with Alzheimer’s disease: concordance among informants. Psychol Aging 6(2):280–285

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Todorov A, Kirchner C (2000) Bias in proxies’ reports of disability: data from the National Health Interview Survey on disability. Am J Public Health 90(8):1248–1253

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kojetin B, Jerstad S (1997) The quality of proxy reports on the consumer expenditure survey. Paper presented at the society of consumer psychology conference, St. Petersburg

    Google Scholar 

  18. Magaziner J, Zimmerman SI, Gruber-Baldini AL et al (1997) Proxy reporting in five areas of functional status. Comparison with self-reports and observations of performance. Am J Epidemiol 146(5):418–428

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Muus I, Petzold M, Ringsberg KC (2009) Health-related quality of life after stroke: reliability of proxy responses. Clin Nurs Res 18(2):103–118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pickard AS, Lin HW, Knight SJ et al (2009) Proxy assessment of health-related quality of life in African American and White respondents with prostate cancer: perspective matters. Med Care 47(2):176–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gundy CM, Aaronson NK (2008) The influence of proxy perspective on patient-proxy agreement in the evaluation of health-related quality of life: an empirical study. Med Care 46(2):209–216

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Hays RD, Vickrey BG, Hermann BP et al (1995) Agreement between self reports and proxy reports of quality of life in epilepsy patients. Qual Life Res 4(2):159–168

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Poulin V, Desrosiers J (2008) Participation after stroke: comparing proxies’ and patients’ perceptions. J Rehabil Med 40(1):28–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Sneeuw KC, Aaronson NK, de Haan RJ et al (1997) Assessing quality of life after stroke. The value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke 28(8):1541–1549

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Rothman ML, Hedrick SC, Bulcroft KA et al (1991) The validity of proxy-generated scores as measures of patient health status. Med Care 29(2):115–124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Satariano W (2005) Epidemiology of aging: an ecological approach. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ostbye T, Tyas S, McDowell I et al (1997) Reported activities of daily living: agreement between elderly subjects with and without dementia and their caregivers. Age Ageing 26(2):99–106

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Administration on Aging and US Department of Health and Human Services (2010) A Profile of Older Americans. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  29. Daltroy LH, Larson MG, Eaton HM et al (1999) Discrepancies between self-reported and observed physical function in the elderly: the influence of response shift and other factors. Soc Sci Med 48(11):1549–1561

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Gibbons FX (1999) Social comparison as a mediator of response shift. Soc Sci Med 48(11):1517–1530

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Blanchard-Fields F, Beatty C (2005) Age differences in blame attributions: the role of relationship outcome ambiguity and personal identification. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 60(1):19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33(1):159–174

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Carrasco JL, Jover L, King TS et al (2007) Comparison of concordance correlation coefficient estimating approaches with skewed data. J Biopharm Stat 17(4):673–684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. McBride GB (2005) A proposal for strength-of-agreement criteria for Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient. NIWA client report: HAM 2005–062

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shardell M, Hicks GE, Miller RR et al (2010) Pattern-mixture models for analyzing normal outcome data with proxy respondents. Stat Med 29(14):1522–1538

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Huang R, Liang Y, Carriere KC (2005) The role of proxy information in missing data analysis. Stat Method Med Res 14(5):457–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rubin D (1986) Multiple imputation for non-response in surveys. W.C.L. edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Matza LS, Secnik K, Rentz AM et al (2005) Assessment of health state utilities for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children using parent proxy report. Qual Life Res 14(3):735–747

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (2009) Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. www.fda.gov Web site. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. Accessed 22 June 2011

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Gerontology, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 660 W. Redwood St., HH 213, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Ann L. Gruber-Baldini Ph.D., Michelle Shardell Ph.D., Kelly D. Lloyd Ph.D. & Jay Magaziner Ph.D., MSHyg

Authors
  1. Ann L. Gruber-Baldini Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michelle Shardell Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kelly D. Lloyd Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jay Magaziner Ph.D., MSHyg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann L. Gruber-Baldini Ph.D. .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, A527 Crabtree Hall, DeSoto Street 130, Pittsburgh, 15261, Pennsylvania, USA

    Anne B. Newman

  2. Graduate School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, University of Pittsburgh, DeSoto Street, A510 Crabtree 130, Pittsburgh, 15261, Pennsylvania, USA

    Jane A. Cauley

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gruber-Baldini, A.L., Shardell, M., Lloyd, K.D., Magaziner, J. (2012). Use of Proxies and Informants. In: Newman, A., Cauley, J. (eds) The Epidemiology of Aging. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5061-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation