RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Using an Online Panel to Crosswalk Alternative Measures of Alcohol Use As Fielded in Two National Samples
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.09.13.23295501
DO 10.1101/2023.09.13.23295501
A1 Pederson, Anna M.
A1 Zimmerman, Scott C
A1 Torres, Jacqueline M.
A1 Schmidt, Laura A.
A1 Kim, Ye Ji
A1 Glymour, M Maria
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/09/14/2023.09.13.23295501.abstract
AB Introduction Accurate estimation of the health effects of drinking is hampered by inconsistent phrasing of questions about alcohol use in commonly-used health surveys (e.g., HRS, NYLS79), and measurement error in brief self-reports of drinking. We fielded an online survey to a diverse pool of respondents, assessing two versions of alcohol use questions. We used the measurement survey responses to evaluate correspondence across question versions and create a crosswalk between versions of alcohol questions from two different nationally representative studies of middle-aged adults. The measurement model can also be used to incorporate measurement error correction.Methods Respondents to two measurement survey platforms (Centiment and Qualtrics) were asked drinking frequency and quantity questions as phrased in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS: average days per week drank in the last 3 months; quantity consumed on days drank in the last 3 months) and differently phrased questions from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 (NLSY79: days drank in last 30 days, average quantity consumed on days drank). The order in which respondents encountered different versions of the questions was randomized. From these questions, we derived measures of average weekly alcohol consumption. In the online panel data, we regressed responses to the HRS question on responses to the NLSY question and vice versa to create imputation models. HRS (n=14,639) and NLSY79 (n=7,069) participants aged 50-59 self-rated their overall health (range 0-4, 0=excellent and 4=poor). NLSY79 or HRS participants’ responses to the alcohol question from the other survey were multiply imputed (k=30) using the measurement model from the measurement survey participant data (k=30). We regressed self-rated health on each alcohol measure and estimated covariate-adjusted coefficients from observed and imputed versions of the questions.Results The measurement survey (n=2,070) included respondents aged 50+; 64.8% female; 21.4% Hispanic, 23.95% Black, 27.1% White, and 27.6% another (“Other”) self-reported racial/ethnic identity. Associations of observed alcohol question responses with self-reported health were slightly smaller than associations of imputed responses for frequency of alcohol use and consumption on days when alcohol was used. For example, using the HRS version of the frequency of alcohol use (days per week), the estimate for the observed question in HRS respondents was ꞵ =-0.045 [-0.055,-0.036]; and the estimate for the imputed version of the HRS question in NLSY79 respondents was ꞵ=-0.051 [-0.065,-0.037]. The estimated effect of average drinks per week was substantially larger for the imputed version of the measure (ꞵ for the observed question in HRS=-0.002 [-0.004,0.001], ꞵ for the imputed version of the HRS measure in NLSY79 respondents=-0.02 [-0.027,-0.012]). Patterns were similar when using the NLSY79 versions of questions as reported in NLSY79 and imputed for HRS respondents. For example, the estimated effect of average drinks per week was substantially larger for the imputed version of the NLSY79 question (ꞵ for the observed question in NLSY79=-0.006 [-0.01,-0.002], ꞵ for the imputed version of the HRS question in NLSY79 respondents=-0.019 [-0.027,-0.01]).Conclusions Measurement inconsistencies and imperfect reliability are major challenges in estimating effects of alcohol use on health. Collecting additional data using online panels is a feasible and flexible approach to quantifying measurement differences. This approach may enable measurement error corrections, improve meta-analyses, and promote evidence triangulation.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis study was funded by NIH-NIA grants #R01AG072681.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:IRB of the University of California, San Fransisco, waived ethical approval for this work.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll outcome data produced are available online to registered researchers on the Health and Retirement Study website under data products, and available on the NLS investigator site.