<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><xml><records><record><source-app name="HighWire" version="7.x">Drupal-HighWire</source-app><ref-type name="Journal Article">17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Baker, Michael</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stabile, Mark</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Deri, Catherine</style></author></authors><secondary-authors></secondary-authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">What Do Self-Reported, Objective, Measures of Health Measure?</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal of Human Resources</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2004-10-02 00:00:00</style></date></pub-dates></dates><pages><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1067-1093</style></pages><doi><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.3368/jhr.39.4.1067</style></doi><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">39</style></volume><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">4</style></issue><abstract><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Survey reports of the incidence of chronic conditions are considered by many researchers to be more objective, and thus preferable, measures of unobserved health status than self-assessed measures of global well being. In this paper we evaluate this hypothesis by attempting to validate these “objective, self-reported” measures of health. Our analysis makes use of a unique data set that matches a variety of self-reports of health with respondents’ medical records. We find that these measures are subject to considerable response error resulting in large attenuation biases when they are used as explanatory variables.</style></abstract></record></records></xml>