Data Harmonization in Aging Research: Not so Fast

Margaret Gatz · Chandra A. Reynolds · Deborah Finkel · Chris Hahn · Yan Zhou · Catalina Zavala

40 citations0/0 files storedExperimental Aging Research

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Aging and Gerontology Research Reliability and Agreement in Measurement

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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 40 citations exist upstream.

References

1977The CES-D Scale 2000Item response theory for psychologists 1999Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers.1992A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research 1940A Self-Administering Scale for Measuring Intellectual Impairment and Deterioration 2009Integrative data analysis: The simultaneous analysis of multiple data sets.2008Bringing Values Back In: The Adequacy of the European Social Survey to Measure Values in 20 Countries 1993An NCME Instructional Module on

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.