Rebecca E Salomon1, Jamie Crandell, Keely A Muscatell, Hudson P Santos, Ruth A Anderson, Linda S Beeber. 1. Rebecca E. Salomon, PhD, RN, PMHNP-BC, is Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California San Francisco School of Nursing. At the time this research was completed, she was a Predoctoral Trainee at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Nursing. Jamie Crandell, PhD, is Research Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Nursing and Department of Biostatistics, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Keely A. Muscatell, PhD, is Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, College of Arts and Sciences, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with a dual appointment at the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Hudson P. Santos, Jr., PhD, RN, is Assistant Professor; Ruth A. Anderson, PhD, RN, FAAN, is the Kenan Distinguished Professor and Associate Dean for Research; and Linda S. Beeber, PhD, PMHCNS-BC, FAAN, is Professor and Assistant Dean, PhD Division and PhD Program, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Nursing.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Symptom clusters are conventionally distilled into a single score using composite scoring, which is based on the mathematical assumption that all symptoms are equivalently related to outcomes of interest; this may lead to a loss of important variation in the data. OBJECTIVES: This article compares two ways of calculating a single score for a symptom cluster: a conventional, hypothesis-driven composite score versus a data-driven, reduced rank regression score that weights the symptoms based on their individual relationships with key outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of psychoneurological symptoms from a sample of 356 low-income mothers. Four of the psychoneurological symptoms (fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, sleep disturbance, and depressed mood) were measured with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; the fifth (pain) was measured using an item from the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). Mothers' function was measured using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey. The composite score was calculated by summing standardized scores for each individual psychoneurological symptom. In contrast, reduced rank regression weighted the individual symptoms using their respective associations with mothers' function; the weighted individual symptom scores were summed into the reduced rank regression symptom score. RESULTS: The composite score and reduced rank regression score were highly correlated at .93. The cluster of psychoneurological symptoms accounted for 53.7% of the variation in the mothers' function. Depressed mood and pain accounted for almost all the explained variation in mothers' function at 37.2% and 15.0%, respectively. DISCUSSION: The composite score approach was simpler to calculate, and the high correlation with the reduced rank regression score indicates that the composite score reflected most of the variation explained by the reduced rank regression approach in this data set. However, the reduced rank regression analysis provided additional information by identifying pain and depressed mood as having the strongest association with a mother's function, which has implications for understanding which symptoms to target in future interventions. Future studies should also explore composite versus reduced rank regression approaches given that reduced rank regression may yield different insights in other data sets.
BACKGROUND: Symptom clusters are conventionally distilled into a single score using composite scoring, which is based on the mathematical assumption that all symptoms are equivalently related to outcomes of interest; this may lead to a loss of important variation in the data. OBJECTIVES: This article compares two ways of calculating a single score for a symptom cluster: a conventional, hypothesis-driven composite score versus a data-driven, reduced rank regression score that weights the symptoms based on their individual relationships with key outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of psychoneurological symptoms from a sample of 356 low-income mothers. Four of the psychoneurological symptoms (fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, sleep disturbance, and depressed mood) were measured with the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale; the fifth (pain) was measured using an item from the Medical Outcomes Study 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). Mothers' function was measured using the 12-item Short Form Health Survey. The composite score was calculated by summing standardized scores for each individual psychoneurological symptom. In contrast, reduced rank regression weighted the individual symptoms using their respective associations with mothers' function; the weighted individual symptom scores were summed into the reduced rank regression symptom score. RESULTS: The composite score and reduced rank regression score were highly correlated at .93. The cluster of psychoneurological symptoms accounted for 53.7% of the variation in the mothers' function. Depressed mood and pain accounted for almost all the explained variation in mothers' function at 37.2% and 15.0%, respectively. DISCUSSION: The composite score approach was simpler to calculate, and the high correlation with the reduced rank regression score indicates that the composite score reflected most of the variation explained by the reduced rank regression approach in this data set. However, the reduced rank regression analysis provided additional information by identifying pain and depressed mood as having the strongest association with a mother's function, which has implications for understanding which symptoms to target in future interventions. Future studies should also explore composite versus reduced rank regression approaches given that reduced rank regression may yield different insights in other data sets.
Authors: Christine Miaskowski; Andrea Barsevick; Ann Berger; Rocco Casagrande; Patricia A Grady; Paul Jacobsen; Jean Kutner; Donald Patrick; Lani Zimmerman; Canhua Xiao; Martha Matocha; Sue Marden Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: A P Lamichhane; A D Liese; E M Urbina; J L Crandell; L M Jaacks; D Dabelea; M H Black; A T Merchant; E J Mayer-Davis Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2014-05-28 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Shawn M Kneipp; John A Kairalla; Barbara J Lutz; Deidre Pereira; Allyson G Hall; Joan Flocks; Linda Beeber; Todd Schwartz Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-07-21 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Lindsay M Jaacks; Jamie Crandell; Michelle A Mendez; Archana P Lamichhane; Wei Liu; Linong Ji; Shufa Du; Wayne Rosamond; Barry M Popkin; Elizabeth J Mayer-Davis Journal: J Diabetes Complications Date: 2014-12-31 Impact factor: 2.852
Authors: Angela R Starkweather; Debra E Lyon; R K Elswick; Alison Montpetit; Yvette Conley; Nancy L McCain Journal: Adv Breast Cancer Res Date: 2013-10
Authors: Rebecca E Salomon; Keely A Muscatell; Jamie Crandell; Ruth A Anderson; Linda S Beeber Journal: Nurs Res Date: 2021 Set/Oct 01 Impact factor: 2.381