ABSTRACT
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.
