Margaret Gatz1,2, Chandra A Reynolds3, Deborah Finkel4, Chris J Hahn5, Yan Zhou6, Catalina Zavala3. 1. a Department of Psychology , University of Southern California , Los Angeles , California , USA. 2. b Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatics , Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden. 3. c Department of Psychology, University of California, Riverside , Riverside , California , USA. 4. d Department of Psychology, Indiana University Southeast , New Albany , Indiana , USA. 5. e Department of Preventive Medicine , Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California , Los Angeles , California , USA. 6. f American Board of Anesthesiology , Raleigh , North Carolina , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/STUDY CONTEXT: Harmonizing measures in order to conduct pooled data analyses has become a scientific priority in aging research. Retrospective harmonization where different studies lack common measures of comparable constructs presents a major challenge. This study compared different approaches to harmonization with a crosswalk sample who completed multiple versions of the measures to be harmonized. METHODS: Through online recruitment, 1061 participants aged 30 to 98 answered two different depression scales, and 1065 participants answered multiple measures of subjective health. Rational and configural methods of harmonization were applied, using the crosswalk sample to determine their success; and empirical item response theory (IRT) methods were applied in order empirically to compare items from different measures as answered by the same person. RESULTS: For depression, IRT worked well to provide a conversion table between different measures. The rational method of extracting semantically matched items from each of the two scales proved an acceptable alternative to IRT. For subjective health, only configural harmonization was supported. The subjective health items used in most studies form a single robust factor. CONCLUSION: Caution is required in aging research when pooling data across studies using different measures of the same construct. Of special concern are response scales that vary widely in the number of response options, especially if the anchors are asymmetrical. A crosswalk sample that has completed items from each of the measures being harmonized allows the investigator to use empirical approaches to identify flawed assumptions in rational or configural approaches to harmonizing.
BACKGROUND/STUDY CONTEXT: Harmonizing measures in order to conduct pooled data analyses has become a scientific priority in aging research. Retrospective harmonization where different studies lack common measures of comparable constructs presents a major challenge. This study compared different approaches to harmonization with a crosswalk sample who completed multiple versions of the measures to be harmonized. METHODS: Through online recruitment, 1061 participants aged 30 to 98 answered two different depression scales, and 1065 participants answered multiple measures of subjective health. Rational and configural methods of harmonization were applied, using the crosswalk sample to determine their success; and empirical item response theory (IRT) methods were applied in order empirically to compare items from different measures as answered by the same person. RESULTS: For depression, IRT worked well to provide a conversion table between different measures. The rational method of extracting semantically matched items from each of the two scales proved an acceptable alternative to IRT. For subjective health, only configural harmonization was supported. The subjective health items used in most studies form a single robust factor. CONCLUSION: Caution is required in aging research when pooling data across studies using different measures of the same construct. Of special concern are response scales that vary widely in the number of response options, especially if the anchors are asymmetrical. A crosswalk sample that has completed items from each of the measures being harmonized allows the investigator to use empirical approaches to identify flawed assumptions in rational or configural approaches to harmonizing.
Authors: Dylan Molenaar; Sophie van der Sluis; Dorret I Boomsma; Claire M A Haworth; John K Hewitt; Nicholas G Martin; Robert Plomin; Margaret J Wright; Conor V Dolan Journal: Behav Genet Date: 2013-02-10 Impact factor: 2.805
Authors: Andrea M Hussong; Nisha C Gottfredson; Dan J Bauer; Patrick J Curran; Maleeha Haroon; Redonna Chandler; Shoshana Y Kahana; Joseph A C Delaney; Frederick L Altice; Curt G Beckwith; Daniel J Feaster; Patrick M Flynn; Michael S Gordon; Kevin Knight; Irene Kuo; Lawrence J Ouellet; Vu M Quan; David W Seal; Sandra A Springer Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: A J Petkus; C R Beam; W Johnson; J Kaprio; T Korhonen; M McGue; J M Neiderhiser; N L Pedersen; C A Reynolds; M Gatz Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Tina T Vo; Shandell Pahlen; William S Kremen; Matt McGue; Anna Dahl Aslan; Marianne Nygaard; Kaare Christensen; Chandra A Reynolds Journal: Sleep Date: 2022-10-10 Impact factor: 6.313
Authors: Deborah Finkel; Catalina Zavala; Carol E Franz; Shandell Pahlen; Margaret Gatz; Nancy L Pedersen; Brian K Finch; Anna Dahl Aslan; Vibeke S Catts; Malin Ericsson; Robert F Krueger; Nicholas G Martin; Adith Mohan; Miriam A Mosing; Carol A Prescott; Keith E Whitfield Journal: Biodemography Soc Biol Date: 2022-02-14
Authors: Chandra A Reynolds; Margaret Gatz; Kaare Christensen; Lene Christiansen; Anna K Dahl Aslan; Jaakko Kaprio; Tellervo Korhonen; William S Kremen; Robert Krueger; Matt McGue; Jenae M Neiderhiser; Nancy L Pedersen Journal: Behav Genet Date: 2015-11-04 Impact factor: 2.805
Authors: Carol E Franz; Deborah Finkel; Matthew S Panizzon; Kelly Spoon; Kaare Christensen; Margaret Gatz; William S Kremen; Robert Krueger; Jenae Neiderhiser; Chandra Reynolds; Nancy L Pedersen Journal: J Aging Health Date: 2016-07-08
Authors: Justin M Luningham; Anne M Hendriks; Eva Krapohl; Hill Fung Ip; Catharina E M van Beijsterveldt; Sebastian Lundström; Eero Vuoksimaa; Tellervo Korhonen; Paul Lichtenstein; Robert Plomin; Lea Pulkkinen; Richard J Rose; Jaakko Kaprio; Meike Bartels; Dorret I Boomsma; Gitta H Lubke Journal: J Child Psychol Psychiatry Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 8.982
Authors: Alden L Gross; Doug Tommet; Madeline D'Aquila; Eva Schmitt; Edward R Marcantonio; Benjamin Helfand; Sharon K Inouye; Richard N Jones Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2018-09-10 Impact factor: 4.615