On the wrong side of the tracts? Evaluating the accuracy of geocoding in public health research

This study sought to determine the accuracy of geocoding for public health databases. A test file of 70 addresses, 50 of which involved errors, was generated, and the file was geocoded to the census tract and block group levels by 4 commercial geocoding firms. Also, the "real world" accura...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAmerican journal of public health (1971) Vol. 91; no. 7; pp. 1114 - 1116
Main Authors Krieger, N, Waterman, P, Lemieux, K, Zierler, S, Hogan, JW
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Washington, DC Am Public Health Assoc 01.07.2001
American Public Health Association
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:This study sought to determine the accuracy of geocoding for public health databases. A test file of 70 addresses, 50 of which involved errors, was generated, and the file was geocoded to the census tract and block group levels by 4 commercial geocoding firms. Also, the "real world" accuracy of the best-performing firm was evaluated. Accuracy rates in regard to geocoding of the test file ranged from 44% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 32%, 56%) to 84% (95% CI = 73%, 92%). The geocoding firm identified as having the best accuracy rate correctly geocoded 96% of the addresses obtained from the public health databases. Public health studies involving geocoded databases should evaluate and report on methods used to verify accuracy.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0090-0036
1541-0048
DOI:10.2105/AJPH.91.7.1114