Alfredo Selim1, William Rogers1, Shirley Qian1, James A Rothendler1, Erin E Kent2, Lewis E Kazis3. 1. Center for the Assessment of Pharmaceutical Practices (CAPP), Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 2. Outcomes Research Branch/Healthcare Delivery Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, USA. 3. Health Outcomes Unit, Department of Health Law, Policy and Management, Center for the Assessment of Pharmaceutical Practices (CAPP), Boston University School of Public Health, 715 Albany Street, T5W, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. lek@bu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To develop bridging algorithms to score the Veterans Rand-12 (VR-12) scales for comparability to those of the SF-36® for facilitating multi-cohort studies using data from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) linked to Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS), and to provide a model for minimizing non-statistical error in pooled analyses stemming from changes to survey instruments over time. METHODS: Observational study of MHOS cohorts 1-12 (1998-2011). We modeled 2-year follow-up SF-36 scale scores from cohorts 1-6 based on baseline SF-36 scores, age, and gender, yielding 100 clusters using Classification and Regression Trees. Within each cluster, we averaged follow-up SF-36 scores. Using the same cluster specifications, expected follow-up SF-36 scores, based on cohorts 1-6, were computed for cohorts 7-8 (where the VR-12 was the follow-up survey). We created a new criterion validity measure, termed "extensibility," calculated from the square root of the mean square difference between expected SF-36 scale averages and observed VR-12 item score from cohorts 7-8, weighted by cluster size. VR-12 items were rescored to minimize this quantity. RESULTS: Extensibility of rescored VR-12 items and scales was considerably improved from the "simple" scoring method for comparability to the SF-36 scales. CONCLUSIONS: The algorithms are appropriate across a wide range of potential subsamples within the MHOS and provide robust application for future studies that span the SF-36 and VR-12 eras. It is possible that these surveys in a different setting outside the MHOS, especially in younger age groups, could produce somewhat different results.
PURPOSE: To develop bridging algorithms to score the Veterans Rand-12 (VR-12) scales for comparability to those of the SF-36® for facilitating multi-cohort studies using data from the National Cancer Institute Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program (SEER) linked to Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS), and to provide a model for minimizing non-statistical error in pooled analyses stemming from changes to survey instruments over time. METHODS: Observational study of MHOS cohorts 1-12 (1998-2011). We modeled 2-year follow-up SF-36 scale scores from cohorts 1-6 based on baseline SF-36 scores, age, and gender, yielding 100 clusters using Classification and Regression Trees. Within each cluster, we averaged follow-up SF-36 scores. Using the same cluster specifications, expected follow-up SF-36 scores, based on cohorts 1-6, were computed for cohorts 7-8 (where the VR-12 was the follow-up survey). We created a new criterion validity measure, termed "extensibility," calculated from the square root of the mean square difference between expected SF-36 scale averages and observed VR-12 item score from cohorts 7-8, weighted by cluster size. VR-12 items were rescored to minimize this quantity. RESULTS: Extensibility of rescored VR-12 items and scales was considerably improved from the "simple" scoring method for comparability to the SF-36 scales. CONCLUSIONS: The algorithms are appropriate across a wide range of potential subsamples within the MHOS and provide robust application for future studies that span the SF-36 and VR-12 eras. It is possible that these surveys in a different setting outside the MHOS, especially in younger age groups, could produce somewhat different results.
Authors: Erin E Kent; Anita Ambs; Sandra A Mitchell; Steven B Clauser; Ashley Wilder Smith; Ron D Hays Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-04 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lewis E Kazis; Donald R Miller; Jack A Clark; Katherine M Skinner; Austin Lee; Xinhua S Ren; Avron Spiro; William H Rogers; John E Ware Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2004 Jul-Sep
Authors: Angela M Stover; Deborah K Mayer; Hyman Muss; Stephanie B Wheeler; Jessica C Lyons; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Nadia A Nabulsi; Ali Alobaidi; Brian Talon; Alemseged A Asfaw; Jifang Zhou; Lisa K Sharp; Karen Sweiss; Pritesh R Patel; Naomi Y Ko; Brian C-H Chiu; Gregory S Calip Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2020-04-30 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Megan K Beckett; Marc N Elliott; Q Burkhart; Paul D Cleary; Nate Orr; Julie A Brown; Sarah Gaillot; Karin Liu; Ron D Hays Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-05-31 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Andrew M Blakely; Dayana Chanson; F Lennie Wong; Oliver S Eng; Stephen M Sentovich; Kurt A Melstrom; Lily L Lai; Yuman Fong; Virginia Sun Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-11-15 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Nita H Mukand; Naomi Y Ko; Nadia A Nabulsi; Colin C Hubbard; Brian C-H Chiu; Kent F Hoskins; Gregory S Calip Journal: Breast Cancer Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 4.239
Authors: Jennifer L Moss; Casey N Pinto; Scherezade K Mama; Maria Rincon; Erin E Kent; Mandi Yu; Kathleen A Cronin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-11-02 Impact factor: 4.147