1 / 36

“Creating Composite Measures Using Factor Analysis: The Total Illness Burden Index

“Creating Composite Measures Using Factor Analysis: The Total Illness Burden Index. Sherrie H. Kaplan, PhD, MPH Professor of Medicine UC Irvine School of Medicine Academy Health ARM June 8-10, 2008. Some Background…. Role of Purpose of Measurement. Changes content of aggregate measure

jake
Download Presentation

“Creating Composite Measures Using Factor Analysis: The Total Illness Burden Index

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. “Creating Composite Measures Using Factor Analysis:The Total Illness Burden Index Sherrie H. Kaplan, PhD, MPH Professor of Medicine UC Irvine School of Medicine Academy Health ARM June 8-10, 2008

  2. Some Background…

  3. Role of Purpose of Measurement • Changes content of aggregate measure • Changes tolerance of error • Changes psychometric requirements of aggregate • Changes ‘level of confidence’, dissemination strategy

  4. How to create composites:Lessons from psychometrics… • Choose measures that broadly represent underlying (latent) construct (sampling from domain of observables); each item adds unique information • Hypothesize structure of items in composites before analysis (what measures what?)

  5. How to create composites:Lessons from psychometrics… • Conduct confirmatory cluster, latent variable analyses (construct validity) • Decide on scoring methods (simple algebraic sum, weighting, conjunctive or compensatory); test scoring methods • Test reliability, predictive validity of derived composite

  6. Models for Composite Scoring • Conjunctive scoring (‘ands’): highest, lowest levels achieved define score • Rheumatoid arthritis trials: patient responded if: • at least a 20% improvement in tender joint count and • 20% improvement in swollen joint count and • at least 20% improvement in 3 out of 5 of the following: pain assessment, global assessment, physician assessment, etc. • Compensatory scoring (‘ors’): high scores on one component make up for low scores on another

  7. Models for weighting • Expert defined • Conditioned by ‘expert’ representation • Regression-based • Conditioned by database (provider, patient sample, sample size) • Factor analysis-based • Conditioned by variables included in factor analysis • Reliability-based • Conditioned by database (sample size)

  8. Classic Measurement Theory: Using Factor Analysis to Create Composites • Each factor represents ‘latent’ construct • Correlations of items with factors (factor ‘loadings’) represent statistical structure of set of variables • Factor analysis does not require items have difficulty structure

  9. Cronbach’s alpha • Measure of internal consistency reliability • Given by formula: • Where: • N = number of tests • σYi2 = variance of item i • σx2= total test variance                                                                                           ,

  10. Cronbach’s alpha • Alpha is unbiased reliability estimator if items have equal covariances (means and item variances may differ); i.e. have common factor in factor analysis                                                                                           ,

  11. Total Illness Burden: The Latent Construct • Patient-reported composite measure of severity of multiple diseases • Taken together represent increasing risk for substantial declines in health and increased risk for mortality (1-5 years post initial observation)

  12. Purposes of Measurement • Post hoc case-mix adjustment • A priori risk stratification of clinical trials • Improve clinical decision making for ‘tailoring’ treatment

  13. Subdimensions… • Pulmonary disease • Heart disease • Stroke and neurologic disease • Gastrointestinal conditions • Other cancers (excluding prostate) • Arthritis • Foot and leg conditions

  14. Subdimensions (cont’) • Eye and vision conditions • Hearing problems • Hypertension • Diabetes

  15. Sample Questions: COPD 1. During the past 6 months, how often did you have wheezing? a. Never b. Once or twice  c. About once a week d. Several times a week e. Several times a day 

  16. Sample Questions: COPD 4. During the past 6 months, did you use extra pillows in order to sleep at night because of problems with your breathing? • No  • Yes, 1 pillow  • Yes, 2 pillows  • Yes, 3 or more pillows

  17. Steps in Constructing Subdimensions • Transformed variables to uniform metric by clinical definition of severity • Tested reliability of clinically defined scale (Cronbach’s alpha > .70) • Created composite of each subdimension using simple algebraic sum, mean • Items in each subdimension varied • Validated each subdimension as scale using SF-36, etc.

  18. Steps in Constructing Composite • Conducted principal components analysis, higher order factor analysis using scales as entries • First factor explained 67% of variance • Other factors had Eigen values, scree indicating single factor solution • Factor loadings ranged from .40 - .70 • Used factor loadings to create composite • Validated derived composite

  19. Understanding and Reducing Disparities in Diabetes Care:Coached Care for Diabetes Sherrie H. Kaplan, PhD, MPH Sheldon Greenfield, MD NovoNordisk Lund, Sweden May 28-20, 2008

  20. Characteristics of Patient Sample

  21. Principal Components Analysis: First Factor

  22. Cronbach’s alpha (.799)

  23. Correlation of TIBI with Patient-Reported Health Status Measures by Ethnic Group

  24. Other TIBI Validation Studies…

  25. Preventing Cardiovascular Disease: Identification of Co-Morbidity Subgroups who may not Benefit from Aggressive Diabetes Management Greenfield S, Nicolucci A, Pellegrini F, Kaplan SH

  26. QuED Study • Prospective cohort study of consecutively enrolled patients with diabetes who completed TIBI at enrollment in Italian Quality of Care and Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Study Group (n=2,613)

  27. QuED Study

  28. QuED: Total 5-yr CV Events by TIBI

  29. QuED: % 5-yr Survival by TIBI

  30. “Complex diabetes patients, those with the greatest burden from competing co-morbidities (highest TIBI scores) may benefit less from aggressive glycemic control due to their increased risk of mortality from other causes before those benefits could be realized.”

  31. Conclusions • Using factor analysis, possible to derive latent construct that reflects patients’“total illness burden” • Potentially useful in case-mix adjustment, clinical trials design, clinical decision making • Future research aimed at improving sensitivity, specificity, particularly at ‘intermediate ranges’

More Related