Conway Kevin P, Vullo Genevieve C, Kennedy Ashley P, Finger Matthew S, Agrawal Arpana, Bjork James M, Farrer Lindsay A, Hancock Dana B, Hussong Andrea, Wakim Paul, Huggins Wayne, Hendershot Tabitha, Nettles Destiney S, Pratt Joseph, Maiese Deborah, Junkins Heather A, Ramos Erin M, Strader Lisa C, Hamilton Carol M, Sher Kenneth J
Division of Epidemiology, Services, and Prevention Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Division of Epidemiology, Services, and Prevention Research, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Bethesda, MD, United States; Kelly Government Solutions, Bethesda, MD, United States.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2014 Aug 1;141:153-8. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.04.029. Epub 2014 May 20.
The need for comprehensive analysis to compare and combine data across multiple studies in order to validate and extend results is widely recognized. This paper aims to assess the extent of data compatibility in the substance abuse and addiction (SAA) sciences through an examination of measure commonality, defined as the use of similar measures, across grants funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA). Data were extracted from applications of funded, active grants involving human-subjects research in four scientific areas (epidemiology, prevention, services, and treatment) and six frequently assessed scientific domains. A total of 548 distinct measures were cited across 141 randomly sampled applications. Commonality, as assessed by density (range of 0-1) of shared measurement, was examined. Results showed that commonality was low and varied by domain/area. Commonality was most prominent for (1) diagnostic interviews (structured and semi-structured) for substance use disorders and psychopathology (density of 0.88), followed by (2) scales to assess dimensions of substance use problems and disorders (0.70), (3) scales to assess dimensions of affect and psychopathology (0.69), (4) measures of substance use quantity and frequency (0.62), (5) measures of personality traits (0.40), and (6) assessments of cognitive/neurologic ability (0.22). The areas of prevention (density of 0.41) and treatment (0.42) had greater commonality than epidemiology (0.36) and services (0.32). To address the lack of measure commonality, NIDA and its scientific partners recommend and provide common measures for SAA researchers within the PhenX Toolkit.
为了验证和扩展研究结果，需要进行全面分析以比较和整合多个研究的数据，这一点已得到广泛认可。本文旨在通过检查措施通用性来评估药物滥用和成瘾（SAA）科学领域的数据兼容性程度，措施通用性定义为使用类似的测量方法，涉及美国国立药物滥用研究所（NIDA）和美国国立酒精滥用与酒精中毒研究所（NIAAA）资助的项目。数据从涉及四个科学领域（流行病学、预防、服务和治疗）和六个经常评估的科学领域的人类受试者研究的已资助、正在进行的项目申请中提取。在141个随机抽样的申请中，共引用了548种不同的测量方法。通过共享测量的密度（范围为0 - 1）评估通用性。结果表明，通用性较低且因领域/领域而异。通用性最突出的是：（1）物质使用障碍和精神病理学的诊断访谈（结构化和半结构化）（密度为0.88），其次是（2）评估物质使用问题和障碍维度的量表（0.70），（3）评估情感和精神病理学维度的量表（0.69），（4）物质使用数量和频率的测量方法（0.62），（5）人格特质的测量方法（0.40），以及（6）认知/神经能力的评估（0.22）。预防领域（密度为0.41）和治疗领域（0.42）的通用性高于流行病学领域（0.36）和服务领域（0.32）。为了解决测量方法缺乏通用性的问题，NIDA及其科学合作伙伴在PhenX工具包中为SAA研究人员推荐并提供了通用测量方法。
