Conceptual comparison of constructs as first step in data harmonization: Parental sensitivity, child temperament, and social support as illustrations

Marije L Verhage; Carlo Schuengel; Annaleena Holopainen; Marian J Bakermans-Kranenburg; Annie Bernier; Geoffrey L Brown; Sheri Madigan; Glenn I Roisman; Mette S Vaever; Maria S Wong; Collaboration on Attachment Transmission Synthesis (CATS)

doi:10.1016/j.mex.2022.101889

Conceptual comparison of constructs as first step in data harmonization: Parental sensitivity, child temperament, and social support as illustrations

MethodsX. 2022 Oct 26:9:101889. doi: 10.1016/j.mex.2022.101889. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Collaborators

Collaboration on Attachment Transmission Synthesis (CATS):
Marian J Bakermans-Kranenburg¹⁰, Lavinia Barone¹¹, Kazuko Y Behrens¹², Johanna Behringer¹³, Annie Bernier¹⁴, Ina Bovenschen¹⁵, Geoffrey L Brown¹⁶, Rosalinda Cassibba¹⁷, Jude Cassidy¹⁸, Gabrielle Coppola¹⁷, Alessandro Costantini¹⁷, Mary Dozier¹⁹, Karin Ensink²⁰, R M Pasco Fearon²¹, Brent Finger²², Airi Hautamaki²³, Nancy L Hazen²⁴, Elena Ierardi²⁵, Inês Jongenelen²⁶, Simo Køppe²⁷, Francesca Lionetti²⁸, Sheri Madigan²⁹, Sarah Mangelsdorf³⁰, Mirjam Oosterman¹⁰, Cecilia S Pace³¹, K Lee Raby³², Cristina Riva Crugnola²⁵, Glenn I Roisman³³, Carlo Schuengel¹⁰, Alessandra Simonelli³⁴, Gottfried Spangler¹⁵, George M Tarabulsy²⁰, Mette S Væver²⁷, Marije L Verhage¹⁰, Maria S Wong³⁵, Bronia Arnott³⁶, Heidi Bailey³⁷, Patrick J Brice³⁸, Karl-Heinz Brisch³⁹, Germana Castoro⁴⁰, Elisabetta Costantino²⁵, Chantal Cyr⁴¹, Carol George⁴², Gabriele Gloger-Tippelt⁴³, Sonia Gojman⁴⁴, Susanne Harder²⁷, Carollee Howes⁴⁵, Heidi Jacobsen⁴⁶, Deborah Jacobvitz²⁴, Mi Kyoung Jin⁴⁷, Femmie Juffer⁴⁸, Miyuki Kazui⁴⁹, Esther M Leerkes⁵⁰, Karlen Lyons-Ruth⁵¹, Catherine McMahon⁵², Elizabeth Meins⁵³, Salvador Millán⁵⁴, Lynne Murray⁵⁵, Katja Nowacki⁵⁶, David R Pederson⁵⁷, Lynn Priddis⁵⁸, Avi Sagi-Schwartz⁵⁹, Sarah J Schoppe-Sullivan⁶⁰, Judith Solomon⁶¹, Anna Maria Speranza⁶², Miriam Steele⁶³, Howard Steele⁶³, Doug M Teti⁶⁴, Marinus H van IJzendoorn⁶⁵, W Monique van Londen-Barentsen⁶⁶, Mary J Ward⁶⁷

Affiliations

¹ Clinical Child and Family Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
² Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
³ Department of Psychology, University of Montréal, Canada.
⁴ Human Development and Family Science, University of Georgia, USA.
⁵ Department of Psychology, University of Calgary, Canada.
⁶ Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
⁷ Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, USA.
⁸ Department of Psychology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
⁹ Endicott College, Beverly, MA, USA.
¹⁰ Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
¹¹ University of Pavia, Italy.
¹² SUNY Polytechnic Institute, Utica, NY.
¹³ Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany.
¹⁴ University of Montréal, Canada.
¹⁵ University of Erlangen - Nuremberg, Germany.
¹⁶ University of Georgia, GA.
¹⁷ University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy.
¹⁸ University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
¹⁹ University of Delaware, Newark, DE.
²⁰ Université Laval, Quebec City, Canada.
²¹ University College London, UK.
²² Montana State University Billings, MT.
²³ University of Helsinki, Finland.
²⁴ University of Texas at Austin, TX.
²⁵ University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy.
²⁶ Universidade Lusófona do Porto, Portugal.
²⁷ University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
²⁸ d'Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy and Queen Mary University of London, UK.
²⁹ University of Calgary and the Alberta Children's Hospital Research Institute, Calgary, Canada.
³⁰ University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI.
³¹ University of Genoa, Italy.
³² University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
³³ University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
³⁴ University of Padova, Italy.
³⁵ Endicott College, MA.
³⁶ Newcastle University, UK.
³⁷ University of Guelph, Canada.
³⁸ Gallaudet University, Washington, DC.
³⁹ Paracelsus Medical School, Salzburg, Austria.
⁴⁰ University of Bari "Aldo Moro", Italy.
⁴¹ Université du Québec à Montréal and CIUSSS Centre-Sud-de-l'île de Montréal, Canada.
⁴² Mills College, Oakland, CA.
⁴³ Ulm University Medical Center, Germany.
⁴⁴ Research Center of the Seminario de Sociopsicoanálisis, Mexico City, Mexico.
⁴⁵ University of California at Los Angeles, CA.
⁴⁶ Region Centre for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, Eastern and Southern Norway, Norway.
⁴⁷ Soomkyung Women's University, Seoul, South Korea.
⁴⁸ Leiden University, The Netherlands.
⁴⁹ Ibaraki University, Mito, Japan.
⁵⁰ University of North Carolina at Greensboro, NC.
⁵¹ Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, MA.
⁵² Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
⁵³ University of York, UK.
⁵⁴ Research Center of the Seminario de Siciopsicoanálisis, Mexico City, Mexico.
⁵⁵ University of Reading, UK.
⁵⁶ Fachhochschule Dortmund, Germany.
⁵⁷ Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
⁵⁸ Edith Cowan University, Western Australia.
⁵⁹ University of Haifa, Israel.
⁶⁰ Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
⁶¹ Cambridge University School of Medicine, UK.
⁶² Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
⁶³ The New School for Social Research, New York, NY.
⁶⁴ The Pennsylvania State University, State College, PA.
⁶⁵ Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
⁶⁶ Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
⁶⁷ Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY.

Abstract

This article presents a strategy for the initial step of data harmonization in Individual Participant Data syntheses, i.e., making decisions as to which measures operationalize the constructs of interest - and which do not. This step is vital in the process of data harmonization, because a study can only be as good as its measures. If the construct validity of the measures is in question, study results are questionable as well. Our proposed strategy for data harmonization consists of three steps. First, a unitary construct is defined based on the existing literature, preferably on the theoretical framework surrounding the construct. Second, the various instruments used to measure the construct are evaluated as operationalizations of this construct, and retained or excluded based on this evaluation. Third, the scores of the included measures are recoded on the same metric. We illustrate the use of this method with three example constructs focal to the Collaboration on Attachment Transmission Synthesis (CATS) study: parental sensitivity, child temperament, and social support. This process description may aid researchers in their data pooling studies, filling a gap in the literature on the first step of data harmonization.•Data harmonization in studies using combined datasets is of vital importance for the validity of the study results.•We have developed and illustrated a strategy on how to define a unitary construct and evaluate whether instruments are operationalizations of this construct as the initial step in the harmonization process.•This strategy is a transferable and reproducible method to apply to the data harmonization process.

Keywords: Construct validity; Data harmonization; Data pooling; IPD, Individual participant data; Individual participant data meta-analysis.

Grants and funding

R01 HD102035/HD/NICHD NIH HHS/United States