Part 1:
1. Choose a paper describing the development or validation of a measure of relevance in health disparities research (please give the full citation and/or upload the paper if that's possible).
Thabrew, H., Stasiak, K., Bavin, L. M., Frampton, C., & Merry, S. (2018). Validation of the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) and Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ) in New Zealand help‐seeking adolescents. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 27(3). doi: 10.1002/mpr.1610
2. What was the definition of the construct?
The construct is depression, defined as symptoms of depression that are likely to be clinically significant i.e., likely to have an impact on a student's daily life.
3. How did the authors provide evidence on the validity of the measure? Could you think of additional approaches to validating the measure?
The authors provided evidence by analyzing:
2- content validity using the item‐total score correlations of the MFQ and SMFQ
3-convergent validity using the correlations of the MFQ and SMFQ with scales of theoretically related constructs, specifically, scales of anxiety and quality of life (Spence Children's Anxiety Scale and Pediatric Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire, respectively)
4-concurrent validity using correlations between the measures and exising validated measures of the construct, ie between the MFQ and the clinician‐rated CDRS‐R and the RADS‐2; and between the SMFQ and the MFQ and clinician‐rated CDRS‐R.
convergent validity (using correlation) between the measure (Short Moods and Feelings Questionnaire) and an existing, validated measure of depression (Moods and Feelings Questionnaire).
They also assessed diagnostic accuracy of the MFQ and SMFQ was also evaluated by examining the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC).
Another important factor to consider is the population being studied, adolescents in New Zealand, quite a specific population sample. For a construct as universal as depression, it is crucial to examine whether this measure could also be applied to more generalizable population.
4. How did the authors provide evidence on the reliability of the measure? Could you think of additional approaches to evaluating the reliability of the measure?
The authors provided evidence of internal reliability of the MFQ and SMFQ using Cronbach's alpha, which examines the average correlations between all the scale items. Another factor to consider is test-retest reliability, as this measure is asking about symptoms over the past 2 weeks. So they could re-administer the test at least 2 weeks after the first test and examine the correlation between results.
5. Describe the implications of a lack of measurement validity or reliability for future research applications.
Lack of valid or reliable measure could have a large impact on the attention given to adolescent depression, a crucial public health issue. It could also directly affect which individuals are considered at risk for depression, and thus more likely to receive treatment. Missing adolescents at high risk for depression due to lack of an appropriate measure could have devastating effects for the individual.
Part 2:
1. Find a paper describing a health disparity (please give the full citation or, even better, upload the paper so everyone else can look at it too)
Harrison, P., Duggan, W., Preddy, J., & Moline, A. (2019). Asthmatic children from lower‐income families are less likely to own an individualised asthma action plan. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 56(2), 194–200. doi: 10.1111/jpc.14553
2. Summarize the construct and measurement of the dimension of disparity (e.g., racial inequalities?, SES inequalities?) and the outcome measured (e.g., self-rated health).
The construct is inequalities of indicators of SES in provision of a pediatric IAAP (Individualized Asthma Action Plan) and compliance with that plan. The outcome is self-reported questions addressing asthma control, IAAP ownership and characteristics, and medication use.
3. What is the evidence for the validity and reliability of the measures?
The questions assessing asthma control were from the validated asthma control test (ACT) and markers of poor control as outlined in international guidelines (Global Initiative for Asthma, National Asthma Education and Prevention Program), therefore evidence is national and global consensus among asthma ‘experts’.
4. What is the reference category used for the disparity measure (ie, who is the comparison group)? Why does this reference category make sense (or not) for this research question?
The reference category differs according to the SES indicator: employment status (paid employment, not working), level of schooling (<year 12, completed year 12), educational qualifications (<bachelor degree, bachelor degree or above) and income (low–middle: ≤$1499/week, high: ≥$1500/week).
The reference category in general was higher SES, so reference categories chosen were being employed, completion of year 12, attainment of a bachelor degree or above and high income status. This makes sense according to the research question, since the study is examining quality of and adherence to asthma control, and more socially advantaged individuals have highest likelihood of better health care. This also means any disparity in the outcome is something that cannot be justified.
5. How is the disparity quantified or measured? Is this an absolute or relative measure or are both provided? Describe which type of measure you would prefer for this research area, or, if both, why.
The disparity is given as rate differences in plan ownership and of compliance and non‐compliance across groups, thus these are absolute measures. This provides more concrete estimates of the gap in asthma health care that must be closed, rather than just comparing asthma health care between groups. As a result I think this is the more appropriate type of measure.