RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Approaches for creating comparable measures of alcohol use symptoms
Harmonization with eight studies of criminal justice populations
Hussong, A. M., Gottfredson, N. C., Bauer, D. J., Curran, P. J., Haroon, M., Chandler, R., Kahana, S. Y., Delaney, J. A. C., Altice, F. L., Beckwith, C. G., Feaster, D. J., Flynn, P. M., Gordon, M. S., Knight, K., Kuo, I., Ouellet, L. J., Quan, V. M., Seal, D. W., & Springer, S. A. (2019). Approaches for creating comparable measures of alcohol use symptoms: Harmonization with eight studies of criminal justice populations. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 194, 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.10.003
Background: With increasing data archives comprised of studies with similar measurement, optimal methods for data harmonization and measurement scoring are a pressing need. We compare three methods for harmonizing and scoring the AUDIT as administered with minimal variation across 11 samples from eight study sites within the STTR (Seek-Test-Treat-Retain) Research Harmonization Initiative. Descriptive statistics and predictive validity results for cut-scores, sum scores, and Moderated Nonlinear Factor Analysis scores (MNLFA; a psychometric harmonization method) are presented.Methods: Across the eight study sites, sample sizes ranged from 50 to 2405 and target populations varied based on sampling frame, location, and inclusion/exclusion criteria. The pooled sample included 4667 participants (82% male, 52% Black, 24% White, 13% Hispanic, and 8% Asian/Pacific Islander; mean age of 38.9 years). Participants completed the AUDIT at baseline in all studies.Results: After logical harmonization of items, we scored the AUDIT using three methods: published cut-scores, sum scores, and MNLFA. We found greater variation, fewer floor effects, and the ability to directly address missing data in MNLFA scores as compared to cut-scores and sum scores. MNLFA scores showed stronger associations with binge drinking and clearer study differences than did other scores.Conclusions: MNLFA scores are a promising tool for data harmonization and scoring in pooled data analysis. Model complexity with large multi-study applications, however, may require new statistical advances to fully realize the benefits of this approach.
