Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33998821›Full record

ArticlePsychological assessment2021

Estimating classification consistency of screening measures and quantifying the impact of measurement bias.

Oscar Gonzalez, A R Georgeson, William E Pelham, Rachel T Fouladi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological assessment, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Oscar GonzalezDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.ORCID 0000-0001-7122-8799
A R GeorgesonDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.ORCID 0000-0002-6426-9258
William E PelhamDepartment of Psychiatry, University of California, San Diego.ORCID 0000-0003-1480-570X
Rachel T FouladiDepartment of Psychology, Simon Fraser University.ORCID 0000-0002-2873-6170

Funding

Identifying Children and Teens at Risk for Early Onset Alcohol Use: An Innovative Application of Machine Learning Algorithms to PreventionF31AA026768 · NIAAA · ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY-TEMPE CAMPUS · PI PELHAM III, WILLIAM ELLERBE · 2018 to 2019
$88k
NIAAA NIH HHS F31 AA026768
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Screening measures are used in psychology and medicine to identify respondents who are high or low on a construct. Based on the screening, the evaluator assigns respondents to classes corresponding to different courses of action: Make a diagnosis versus reject a diagnosis; provide services versus withhold services; or conduct further assessment versus conclude the assessment process. When measures are used to classify individuals, it is important that the decisions be consistent and equitable across groups. Ideally, if respondents completed the screening measure repeatedly in quick succession, they would be consistently assigned into the same class each time. In addition, the consistency of the classification should be unrelated to the respondents' background characteristics, such as sex, race, or ethnicity (i.e., the measure is free of measurement bias). Reporting estimates of classification consistency is a common practice in educational testing, but there has been limited application of these estimates to screening in psychology and medicine. In this article, we present two procedures based on item response theory that are used (a) to estimate the classification consistency of a screening measure and (b) to evaluate how classification consistency is impacted by measurement bias across respondent groups. We provide R functions to conduct the procedures, illustrate the procedures with real data, and use Monte Carlo simulations to guide their appropriate use. Finally, we discuss how estimates of classification consistency can help assessment specialists make more informed decisions on the use of a screening measure with protected groups (e.g., groups defined by gender, race, or ethnicity). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

ClassificationHealthcare DisparitiesAdultBiasClinical Decision-MakingComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningModels, PsychologicalMonte Carlo MethodObserver VariationReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID33998821
PMCPMC8412438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.