认知功能与调查回答的质量:对 10 项老龄化流行病学研究的个体参与者数据荟萃分析。

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1093/geronb/gbae030
Stefan Schneider, Pey-Jiuan Lee, Raymond Hernandez, Doerte U Junghaenel, Arthur A Stone, Erik Meijer, Haomiao Jin, Arie Kapteyn, Bart Orriens, Elizabeth M Zelinski
{"title":"认知功能与调查回答的质量:对 10 项老龄化流行病学研究的个体参与者数据荟萃分析。","authors":"Stefan Schneider, Pey-Jiuan Lee, Raymond Hernandez, Doerte U Junghaenel, Arthur A Stone, Erik Meijer, Haomiao Jin, Arie Kapteyn, Bart Orriens, Elizabeth M Zelinski","doi":"10.1093/geronb/gbae030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Self-reported survey data are essential for monitoring the health and well-being of the population as it ages. For studies of aging to provide precise and unbiased results, it is necessary that the self-reported information meets high psychometric standards. In this study, we examined whether the quality of survey responses in panel studies of aging depends on respondents' cognitive abilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Over 17 million survey responses from 157,844 participants aged 50 years and older in 10 epidemiological studies of aging were analyzed. We derived 6 common statistical indicators of response quality from each participant's data and estimated the correlations with participants' cognitive test scores at each study wave. Effect sizes (correlations) were synthesized across studies, cognitive tests, and waves using individual participant data meta-analysis methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respondents with lower cognitive scores showed significantly more missing item responses (overall effect size ρ^ = -0.144), random measurement error (ρ^ = -0.192), Guttman errors (ρ^ = -0.233), multivariate outliers (ρ^ = -0.254), and acquiescent responses (ρ^ = -0.078); the overall effect for extreme responses (ρ^ = -0.045) was not significant. Effect sizes were consistent across studies, modes of survey administsration, and different cognitive functioning domains, although some cognitive domain specificity was also observed.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Lower-quality responses among respondents with lower cognitive abilities add random and systematic errors to survey measures, reducing the reliability, validity, and reproducibility of survey study results in aging research.</p>","PeriodicalId":56111,"journal":{"name":"Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10998342/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cognitive Functioning and the Quality of Survey Responses: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of 10 Epidemiological Studies of Aging.\",\"authors\":\"Stefan Schneider, Pey-Jiuan Lee, Raymond Hernandez, Doerte U Junghaenel, Arthur A Stone, Erik Meijer, Haomiao Jin, Arie Kapteyn, Bart Orriens, Elizabeth M Zelinski\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/geronb/gbae030\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Self-reported survey data are essential for monitoring the health and well-being of the population as it ages. For studies of aging to provide precise and unbiased results, it is necessary that the self-reported information meets high psychometric standards. In this study, we examined whether the quality of survey responses in panel studies of aging depends on respondents' cognitive abilities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Over 17 million survey responses from 157,844 participants aged 50 years and older in 10 epidemiological studies of aging were analyzed. We derived 6 common statistical indicators of response quality from each participant's data and estimated the correlations with participants' cognitive test scores at each study wave. Effect sizes (correlations) were synthesized across studies, cognitive tests, and waves using individual participant data meta-analysis methods.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respondents with lower cognitive scores showed significantly more missing item responses (overall effect size ρ^ = -0.144), random measurement error (ρ^ = -0.192), Guttman errors (ρ^ = -0.233), multivariate outliers (ρ^ = -0.254), and acquiescent responses (ρ^ = -0.078); the overall effect for extreme responses (ρ^ = -0.045) was not significant. Effect sizes were consistent across studies, modes of survey administsration, and different cognitive functioning domains, although some cognitive domain specificity was also observed.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Lower-quality responses among respondents with lower cognitive abilities add random and systematic errors to survey measures, reducing the reliability, validity, and reproducibility of survey study results in aging research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56111,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10998342/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbae030\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbae030","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:自我报告的调查数据对于监测人口老龄化过程中的健康和福祉至关重要。要使老龄化研究提供精确、无偏见的结果,自我报告的信息必须符合较高的心理测量标准。在这项研究中,我们探讨了老龄化小组研究中调查回答的质量是否取决于受访者的认知能力:方法:我们对 10 项老龄化流行病学研究中 157844 名 50 岁及以上参与者的 1700 多万份调查回答进行了分析。我们从每位参与者的数据中得出了六种常见的回复质量统计指标,并估算了这些指标与参与者在每个研究波次的认知测试得分之间的相关性。我们使用个体参与者数据(IPD)元分析方法对不同研究、认知测试和研究波次的效应大小(相关性)进行了综合分析:结果:认知分数较低的受试者在缺项回答(总体效应大小 ρ = -.144)、随机测量误差(ρ = -.192)、古特曼误差(ρ = -.233)、多元离群值(ρ = -.254)和默许回答(ρ = -.078)方面的缺失明显较多;极端回答(ρ = -.045)的总体效应不明显。不同研究、调查实施方式和不同认知功能领域的效应大小是一致的,但也观察到一些认知领域的特异性:讨论:认知能力较低的受访者的回答质量较低,这增加了调查测量的随机和系统误差,降低了老龄化研究中调查结果的可靠性、有效性和可重复性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cognitive Functioning and the Quality of Survey Responses: An Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis of 10 Epidemiological Studies of Aging.

Objectives: Self-reported survey data are essential for monitoring the health and well-being of the population as it ages. For studies of aging to provide precise and unbiased results, it is necessary that the self-reported information meets high psychometric standards. In this study, we examined whether the quality of survey responses in panel studies of aging depends on respondents' cognitive abilities.

Methods: Over 17 million survey responses from 157,844 participants aged 50 years and older in 10 epidemiological studies of aging were analyzed. We derived 6 common statistical indicators of response quality from each participant's data and estimated the correlations with participants' cognitive test scores at each study wave. Effect sizes (correlations) were synthesized across studies, cognitive tests, and waves using individual participant data meta-analysis methods.

Results: Respondents with lower cognitive scores showed significantly more missing item responses (overall effect size ρ^ = -0.144), random measurement error (ρ^ = -0.192), Guttman errors (ρ^ = -0.233), multivariate outliers (ρ^ = -0.254), and acquiescent responses (ρ^ = -0.078); the overall effect for extreme responses (ρ^ = -0.045) was not significant. Effect sizes were consistent across studies, modes of survey administsration, and different cognitive functioning domains, although some cognitive domain specificity was also observed.

Discussion: Lower-quality responses among respondents with lower cognitive abilities add random and systematic errors to survey measures, reducing the reliability, validity, and reproducibility of survey study results in aging research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.10%
发文量
178
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences publishes articles on development in adulthood and old age that advance the psychological science of aging processes and outcomes. Articles have clear implications for theoretical or methodological innovation in the psychology of aging or contribute significantly to the empirical understanding of psychological processes and aging. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, attitudes, clinical applications, cognition, education, emotion, health, human factors, interpersonal relations, neuropsychology, perception, personality, physiological psychology, social psychology, and sensation.
期刊最新文献
Factors Associated With Intended Utilization of Home-Based Long-Term Care Among Older Adults in China: The Moderating Effect of Community Support. Does Pain Explain Trends in Disability? An Analysis of Middle-Aged and Older U.S. Adults, 2002-2018. Neighborhood Stressors and Epigenetic Age Acceleration among Older Americans. Associations between Loneliness, Epigenetic Aging, and Multimorbidity through Older Adulthood. Loneliness Trajectories in U.S. Military Veterans: A 3-Year Longitudinal Study of Risk and Protective Factors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1