Comparing Geocoding Methods: Single-Stage vs Multi-Stage
Author Information
Author(s): Gina S. Lovasi, Jeremy C. Weiss, Richard Hoskins, Eric A. Whitsel, Kenneth Rice, Craig F. Erickson, Bruce M. Psaty
Primary Institution: Columbia University
Hypothesis
We expected to find a higher geocoding match rate with the WA DOH multi-stage process.
Conclusion
The multi-stage geocoding method had a higher match rate than the single-stage method.
Supporting Evidence
- The multi-stage method had a higher match rate than the single-stage method: 99% versus 95%.
- Of 7,686 addresses geocoded by both methods, 96% were geocoded to the same census tract.
- The distance between geocoded coordinates was higher in sparsely populated and low poverty areas.
Takeaway
This study looked at two ways to find addresses on a map. One way was better at finding more addresses correctly.
Methodology
We compared two geocoding methods using 8,157 Washington State addresses and measured the distance between locations assigned by each method.
Potential Biases
There may have been unmeasured or residual confounding by address or area characteristics.
Limitations
The study did not discern which elements contributed most to the difference between the two geocoding methods.
Participant Demographics
Addresses were primarily from Washington State, with a focus on licensed daycare providers.
Statistical Information
P-Value
p<0.05
Confidence Interval
(95% CI: 140, 179)
Statistical Significance
p<0.05
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website