Pulse lineResearch With Heart Logo

Pre-Statistical Considerations for Harmonization of Cognitive Instruments: Harmonization of ARIC, CARDIA, CHS, FHS, MESA, and NOMAS.

TitlePre-Statistical Considerations for Harmonization of Cognitive Instruments: Harmonization of ARIC, CARDIA, CHS, FHS, MESA, and NOMAS.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2021
AuthorsBriceño EM, Gross AL, Giordani BJ, Manly JJ, Gottesman RF, Elkind MSV, Sidney S, Hingtgen S, Sacco RL, Wright CB, Fitzpatrick A, Fohner AE, Mosley TH, Yaffe K, Levine DA
JournalJ Alzheimers Dis
Date Published2021 Aug 24
ISSN1875-8908
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meta-analyses of individuals' cognitive data are increasing to investigate the biomedical, lifestyle, and sociocultural factors that influence cognitive decline and dementia risk. Pre-statistical harmonization of cognitive instruments is a critical methodological step for accurate cognitive data harmonization, yet specific approaches for this process are unclear.

OBJECTIVE: To describe pre-statistical harmonization of cognitive instruments for an individual-level meta-analysis in the blood pressure and cognition (BP COG) study.

METHODS: We identified cognitive instruments from six cohorts (the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study, Cardiovascular Health Study, Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults study, Framingham Offspring Study, Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, and Northern Manhattan Study) and conducted an extensive review of each item's administration and scoring procedures, and score distributions.

RESULTS: We included 153 cognitive instrument items from 34 instruments across the six cohorts. Of these items, 42%were common across ≥2 cohorts. 86%of common items showed differences across cohorts. We found administration, scoring, and coding differences for seemingly equivalent items. These differences corresponded to variability across cohorts in score distributions and ranges. We performed data augmentation to adjust for differences.

CONCLUSION: Cross-cohort administration, scoring, and procedural differences for cognitive instruments are frequent and need to be assessed to address potential impact on meta-analyses and cognitive data interpretation. Detecting and accounting for these differences is critical for accurate attributions of cognitive health across cohort studies.

DOI10.3233/JAD-210459
Alternate JournalJ Alzheimers Dis
PubMed ID34459397