Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kelder, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Forster, J. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kelder, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by Forster, J. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Health Education Research, Vol. 8, No. 4, 555-566, 1993
© 1993 Oxford University Press

other

The worksite component of variance: design effects and the Healthy Worker Project

Steven H. Kelder, David R. Jacobs, Jr1, Robert W. Jeffery, Paul G. McGovern1 and Jean L. Forster1

Center for Health Promotion Research and Development, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, School of Public Health PO Box 20186, Houston, TX 77225, USA
1Division of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota, School of Public Health 1300 South Second Street (Suite 300), Minneapolis, MN 55454-1015, USA

Variance estimates in worksite health promotion studies depend partly on the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). ICC quantifies homogeneity of a variable within worksites. ICC would be zero for randomly formed worksites, but is generally positive because employees tend to share personal characteristics. The ratio comparing the variance estimated from worksite means with that estimated from individuals under simple random sampling is the design effect (DEFF). A DEFF of 1.0 indicates no excess variance due to worksite. The Healthy Worker Project (HWP) was a 32 worksite cross-sectional and longitudinal study of a weight and smoking intervention program. ICCs in cross-sectional surveys for health-related outcome variables ranged from 0.006 to 0.009, DEFFs from 2.0 to 2.6. ICCs/DEFF's in longitudinal analysis were smaller; ICCs ranged from -0.002 to 0.003, DEFFs from 0.7 to 1.5. Positive ICCs substantially increased variance estimates at a single measurement, yet variance of longitudinal analysis was less subject to worksite dependence. It is concluded the worksite component of variance is real and should not be ignored, although the worksite component of variance is small in these longitudinal analyses. This observation should be replicated before it is used in other worksite health promotion research.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eval RevHome page
D. M. Murray and J. L. Blitstein
Methods To Reduce The Impact Of Intraclass Correlation In Group-Randomized Trials
Eval Rev, February 1, 2003; 27(1): 79 - 103.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Stat Methods Med ResHome page
D. M Murray, H. A Feldman, P. G McGovern, and For the REACT Study Group
Components of variance in a group-randomized trial analysed via a random-coefficients model: the Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (REACT) trial
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, April 1, 2000; 9(2): 117 - 133.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.