An Evaluation of Item Harmonization Strategies Between Assessment Tools of Psychopathology in Children and Adolescents

Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Citações na Scopus
0
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2024
DOI
Scopus
Web of Science
PubMed
Dimensions
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
Autores
HOFFMANN, Mauricio Scopel
MOORE, Tyler Maxwell
AXELRUD, Luiza Kvitko
TOTTENHAM, Nim
PAN, Pedro Mario
ROHDE, Luis Augusto
MILHAM, Michael Peter
SATTERTHWAITE, Theodore Daniel
SALUM, Giovanni Abrahao
Citação
ASSESSMENT, v.31, n.2, p.502-517, 2024
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Data aggregation in mental health is complicated by using different questionnaires, and little is known about the impact of item harmonization strategies on measurement precision. Therefore, we aimed to assess the impact of various item harmonization strategies for a target and proxy questionnaire using correlated and bifactor models. Data were obtained from the Brazilian High-Risk Study for Mental Conditions (BHRCS) and the Healthy Brain Network (HBN; N = 6,140, ages 5-22 years, 39.6% females). We tested six item-wise harmonization strategies and compared them based on several indices. The one-by-one (1:1) expert-based semantic item harmonization presented the best strategy as it was the only that resulted in scalar-invariant models for both samples and factor models. The between-questionnaires factor correlation, reliability, and factor score difference in using a proxy instead of a target measure improved little when all other harmonization strategies were compared with a completely at-random strategy. However, for bifactor models, between-questionnaire specific factor correlation increased from 0.05-0.19 (random item harmonization) to 0.43-0.60 (expert-based 1:1 semantic harmonization) in BHRCS and HBN samples, respectively. Therefore, item harmonization strategies are relevant for specific factors from bifactor models and had little impact on p-factors and first-order correlated factors when the child behavior checklist (CBCL) and strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) were harmonized.
Palavras-chave
natural language processing, factor analysis, psychopathology, p-factor, bifactor model
URI
https://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/58991
Referências
  1. Achenbach T. M., 2001, Manual for ASEBA School-Age Forms Profiles, DOI 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0116407
  2. Alexander LM, 2017, SCI DATA, V4, DOI 10.1038/sdata.2017.181
  3. Bauer DJ, 2009, PSYCHOL METHODS, V14, P101, DOI 10.1037/a0015583
  4. Beam E, 2021, NAT NEUROSCI, V24, P1733, DOI 10.1038/s41593-021-00948-9
  5. Bethlehem RAI, 2022, NATURE, V604, P525, DOI 10.1038/s41586-022-04554-y
  6. Chen FF, 2005, STRUCT EQU MODELING, V12, P471, DOI 10.1080/10705510701301834
  7. Clark DA, 2018, MULTIVAR BEHAV RES, V53, P544, DOI 10.1080/00273171.2018.1461058
  8. Curran PJ, 2008, DEV PSYCHOL, V44, P365, DOI 10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.365
  9. Curran PJ, 2009, PSYCHOL METHODS, V14, P81, DOI 10.1037/a0015914
  10. DiStefano C, 2014, STRUCT EQU MODELING, V21, P425, DOI 10.1080/10705511.2014.915373
  11. Dueber D.M., 2017, BIFACTOR INDICES CAL, DOI 10.13023/EDP.TOOL.01
  12. Fernandez de la Cruz L, 2018, CHILD PSYCHIAT HUM D, V49, P607, DOI 10.1007/s10578-017-0777-1
  13. Giedd JN, 2019, AM J PSYCHIAT, V176, P503, DOI 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19050540
  14. Gondek D, 2022, PSYCHOL MED, V52, P1471, DOI 10.1017/S003329172000327X
  15. Goodman R, 2000, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V41, P645, DOI 10.1017/S0021963099005909
  16. Liu LG, 2021, SCI DATA, V8, DOI 10.1038/s41597-021-00929-4
  17. Hallquist MN, 2018, STRUCT EQU MODELING, V25, P621, DOI 10.1080/10705511.2017.1402334
  18. Heinrich M, 2020, ASSESSMENT, V27, P1429, DOI 10.1177/1073191118803738
  19. Hoffmann M. S., 2022, EVALUATION ITEM MATC, DOI [10.17605/OSF.IO/WNRP4, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/WNRP4]
  20. Hu LT, 1999, STRUCT EQU MODELING, V6, P1, DOI 10.1080/10705519909540118
  21. Kjell ONE, 2019, PSYCHOL METHODS, V24, P92, DOI 10.1037/met0000191
  22. Kóbor A, 2013, EUR J PSYCHOL ASSESS, V29, P299, DOI 10.1027/1015-5759/a000160
  23. Levin-Aspenson HF, 2021, ASSESSMENT, V28, P1035, DOI 10.1177/1073191120954921
  24. Luningham JM, 2020, J CHILD PSYCHOL PSYC, V61, P807, DOI 10.1111/jcpp.13188
  25. Luningham JM, 2019, FRONT GENET, V10, DOI 10.3389/fgene.2019.01227
  26. Mansolf M, 2020, EDUC PSYCHOL MEAS, V80, P870, DOI 10.1177/0013164419897307
  27. Marsh HW, 2004, STRUCT EQU MODELING, V11, P320, DOI 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
  28. McArdle JJ, 2009, PSYCHOL METHODS, V14, P126, DOI 10.1037/a0015857
  29. McElroy E., 2021, HARMONISATION MEASUR
  30. MEREDITH W, 1993, PSYCHOMETRIKA, V58, P525, DOI 10.1007/BF02294825
  31. Moore TM, 2020, J ABNORM PSYCHOL, V129, P677, DOI 10.1037/abn0000601
  32. Mundfrom DJ, 2005, INT J TEST, V5, P159, DOI 10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4
  33. Muthen B.O., 2002, LATENT VARIABLE ANAL, DOI 10.1007/S10519-008-9237-9
  34. Muthén B, 2014, FRONT PSYCHOL, V5, DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00978
  35. Muthen L. K., 2017, Mplus User's Guide, VEighth Edition
  36. Ploubidis GB, 2019, LONGITUD LIFE COURSE, V10, P471, DOI 10.1332/175795919X15683588979486
  37. Reimers N, 2019, 57TH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS (ACL 2019), P567
  38. Reise SP, 2012, MULTIVAR BEHAV RES, V47, P667, DOI 10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
  39. Rodriguez A, 2016, PSYCHOL METHODS, V21, P137, DOI 10.1037/met0000045
  40. Salum GA, 2015, INT J METH PSYCH RES, V24, P58, DOI 10.1002/mpr.1459
  41. Schmaal L, 2015, BIOL PSYCHIAT, V77, DOI 10.1038/mp.2015.69
  42. Hoffmann MS, 2022, J PSYCHOPATHOL CLIN, V131, P407, DOI 10.1037/abn0000749
  43. Thissen D, 2015, SPRINGER P MATH STAT, V140, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-19977-1_1
  44. Thompson PM, 2022, HUM BRAIN MAPP, V43, P15, DOI 10.1002/hbm.25672
  45. Tulsky DS, 2019, QUAL LIFE RES, V28, P1217, DOI 10.1007/s11136-018-2073-3
  46. Watts AL, 2019, CLIN PSYCHOL SCI, V7, P1285, DOI 10.1177/2167702619855035
  47. Zugman A, 2022, HUM BRAIN MAPP, V43, P255, DOI 10.1002/hbm.25096

Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/MPS