RCMAR Analysis Core Conference Minutes
January 21, 2014 8:00 A.M. to 9:00 A.M. (Pacific)
Call in information is 888 921-8686 (3103120536#)
Pin code for moderator: 6769
I. Roll call, availability, and role assignments for next teleconference
Name
Hays, Ron (UCLA)
Kapteyn, Arie (USC)
Moore, Mignon (UCLA)
Mungas, Dan (UC Davis)
Schwartz, Steve (U Wash/U Colorado)
Stewart, Anita (UCSF)
Templin, Tom (WSU/U Mich)
Teresi, Jeanne (Columbia U)
Wallace, Steve (UCLA Coord Center)
Weech-Maldonado, Rob (UAB)
Facilitator
Recorder
Present Jan 21
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rob Weech-Maldonado
Anita Stewart
Available Feb 18
Yes
No
??
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Anita Stewart
Dan Mungas
II. Review and approval of minutes from December call
The minutes were approved and will be forwarded to Steve W. for posting on the password
restricted area of the RMCAR web site (http://www.rcmar.ucla.edu/). Use rcmar, rcmar-II
(capitol I’s).
III. Additional/deletions to agenda
None
IV. Announcements
Steve Wallace mentioned that the 2014 GSA Preconference Workshop will be on the national
agenda for Alzheimers disease. This is not a core-specific workshop. It will summarize the
NAPA (National Alzheimers Project Act); Ladsen Hinton (Director, Latino Aging Research
Resource Center or LARRC) will chair the planning committee. The final decision on funding the
next RCMAR preconference series will be at the late February council meeting, but GSA
requires a proposal by March 5, so the planning will have to start before the final funding
decision.
V. Annotated Bibliographies – Disseminating Research Methods
The Appendix shows the current status of the Annotated Bibliographies:
http://www.rcmar.ucla.edu/rcmar_wiki/References.html
We discussed some updates. The 4 citations in the Perceived Discrimination bibliography were
not done by Angela Thrasher at UCSF. Thus, UCLA will take over the updates – Steve Wallace
has someone in mind who is interested in this topic.
Page 1
Tom Templin distributed the following outline of the list he is working on pertaining to
longitudinal methods of analysis which we discussed.
1.
Need three lists (longitudinal with repeated measures, time series, survival/time to event)
2. This is the longitudinal with repeated measures list
3. Types of models
4. Multilevel and ANOVA models (univariable and multivariable, multivariate in the sense of multiple
dependent variables, predictors-outcomes-covariates, certain time series models, difference
score models)
5. Analytic issues related to Multilevel and ANOVA type models
a.
Within/between analysis
b. Testing specific hypotheses and contrasts
c.
Issues (level of measurement, sample size, methods of estimation)
6. Examples in aging health disparities literature
7. SEM Models (models with mediation, time varying covariates)
a.
Autoregressive
b. Cross lagged panel
c.
Latent growth curve models (MV-growth curve models)
8. Analytic issues related to SEM models
9. Examples in aging health disparities literature
10. General Models and new directions
a.
Asparouhov and Muthen
b. Bollen and Brand
This led to a broader discussion about how such datasets can be used to answer questions about
disparities and determinants. Most of the datasets are observational, with only rarely an
experimental design.
One question is whether to include as one factor or multiple factor for each dataset what
measures are available on key determinants of disparities. Arie Kapteyn noted that it is most
important simply that a dataset have a good measure of race/ethnicity. Rob Weech-Maldonado
noted the need to include methods for using race/ethnicity as a moderating variable. Anita
Stewart mentioned the need to include specialized methods of analyzing disparities rather than
simply methods of analyzing longitudinal data. Are there in fact clear methods for determining
if there are disparities or whether a determinant can explain those disparities? Tom mentioned
that the most common methods are determining differences in associations by group (e.g.
interactions), and include, for example, multi-group SEM modeling, differences in slopes,
differences in variances by groups.
We discussed the role, for example, of the quality of education as a determinant. Tom Templin
has been doing some work on subjective reports of what people have learned about how they
adapted to adverse circumstances. For example, one could measure perceptions about factors
that helped people overcome challenges.
We also discussed the fact that this entire list is done on an ad-hoc basis with no proactive
consideration as to whether this covers all important methods in conducing minority aging
Page 2
research. The lists have been done by each center based on the needs and interests of its
scholars and faculty. We can possible consider being more proactive and creating something of
use to researchers.
This led to a discussion of a possible book or set of papers on these methods. There apparently
are no good methods books. Rob Weech-Maldonado mentioned a Handbook of Minority Aging
(Edited by Keith E. Whitfield and Tamara A. Baker. Springer, 2013) but noted that it did not
contain any information on methods. We could possible obtain a small grant to work on this.
VI. RCMAR Preconference Workshop – 2015 – Use of Well-Being Measures in Minority Aging
Research.
We will keep this an agenda item to begin to plan this workshop. The abstract will be due early
in 2015. Steve Wallace reiterated that this topic is one of the NIA policy priorities, as NIA is
moving away from only a disease focus to also look at positive outcomes of aging. Appendix II
has the current schedule and updates.
VII. Possible Use of Adobe Connect for Future Analysis Core Calls.
Steve W. will have the coordinating center use Adobe Connect on the next call log- in
information to follow. We will walk through www.qualityforum.org/Projects/n-r/PatientReported_Outcomes/Patient-Reported_Outcomes.aspx as part of the illustration of the
features of Adobe Connect.
VIII. Issues in Use of NIH Toolbox
Because no progress has been made by the Toolbox team to facilitate the problems faced by
Julene Johnson’s project, there is nothing of substance to present in a symposium. We decided
to abandon this idea for now.
However, an application is under review by the NCI Person-Centered Outcomes Research
Resource (PCAR) effort. The goal of PCAR is to bring four existing person-centered outcome
measures together (PROMIS, Toolbox, Neuro-QoL, Adult Sickle Cell Quality of Life
Measurement Information System—ASCQ-Me) and to educate, equip and enable researchers
and clinical providers to use them correctly and effectively. This funding has potential to be
useful in understanding how to improve user friendliness of the Assessment Center measures.
PCORI also has funding for methodological research, but these issues may not be what they
have in mind. Rob Weech-Maldonado sent a link to the PCORI funding RFA.
Our Board has approved our plan to make $5 million available to support funding for research focused on the
Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®). PROMIS® is a system of valid, reliable
tools to measure patient-reported outcomes developed with support from the National Institutes of Health. We will
fund individual projects for up to two years and up to $500,000 per project as part of an upcoming funding
announcement related to our Accelerating Patient-Centered Outcomes Research and Methodological Research
priority area.
We've also issued a Request for Information (RFI) inviting input from stakeholders to identify areas for
future PROMIS®-focused research. We're holding a webinar from noon to 1:00 p.m. (ET) on Thursday, Jan. 30, during
which NIH representatives will provide background on PROMIS® and together with PCORI staff, will take audience
Page 3
questions. Register at this event page. RFI responses should be sent to PROMISRFI@pcori.org no later than 5:00
p.m. (ET) Tuesday, Feb.12. More information can be found on our website.
Page 4
IX. Post Call Details
2014 RCMAR Measurement and Methods Conference Call Assignments
Recorder
Month
January 21
February 18
March 18
April 15
May 20
June 17
July 15
August 19
September 16
October 21
November 18
December 16
Anita Stewart
Dan Mungas
Facilitator
Rob Weech-Maldonado
Anita Stewart
Summary of 2014 completed conference call participation
Name
Ron D. Hays
Arie Kapteyn
Mignon Moore
Dan Mungas
Steve Schwartz
Anita Stewart
Tom Templin
Rob Weech-Maldonado
Email Addresses
Ron D. Hays
Arie Kapteyn
Mignon Moore
Dan Mungas
Steve Schwartz
Anita Stewart
Tom Templin
Jeanne Teresi
Steven P. Wallace
Rob Weech-Maldonado
# Recorder
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
# Facilitator
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total count
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
drhays@ucla.edu
kapteyn@usc.edu
moore@soc.ucla.edu
dmmungas@ucdavis.edu
stevesch@u.washington.edu
anita.stewart@ucsf.edu
ac0410@wayne.edu
teresimeas@aol.com
swallace@ucla.edu
rweech@uab.edu
Page 5
Agenda for Next RCMAR Analysis Core Conference Call
February 18, 2014 11:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. (Eastern)
Call in information is 888 921-8686 (3103120536#)
Pin code for moderator: 6769
I. Roll call, availability, and role assignments for next teleconference
II. Review and approval of minutes from last call
III. Additions/deletions to agenda
IV. Announcements
V. Annotated bibliographies
VI. 2015 Preconference: Use of Well-Being Measures in Minority Aging Research.
VII. Miscellany
Page 6
APPENDIX I: ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHIES
January 21, 2014 Updates
The currently available annotated bibliographies, plus those being proposed or in process (in
italics), are shown below. We note the source (which center created the bibliography) and the
last time it was updated. Questions remain for several lists.
Methods for Developing, Adapting, and Evaluating Measures for Minority Populations
 Overviews of Measurement Issues (All; updated April 2013)
 Using Focus Groups in the Development of Structured Surveys (UCSF; updated Sept 2010)
 Using Cognitive Interviews to Develop Structured Surveys (UCSF; updated June 2010)
 IRT & DIF Readings (UCLA; updated July 2010)
 Guidelines for Translating Surveys in Cross-Cultural Research (UCSF; updated May 2010)
 Analyzing qualitative data (UCLA, Mignon Moore to draft)
 Strengthening Causal Inference in Nonrandomized Health Disparity Designs (UMICH:
updated April, 2013)
 Longitudinal methods (UMICH; Tom is working on this and will contact Arie for input on
econometrics- targeted for 2014)
 Online panels (USC, UCLA, UCD: Arie and Ron will draft by January 2013)
Race/Ethnicity and Ethnic Identify Concepts and Measures
 Ethnic Identity References (UW/UC; updated 2005))
 Race/Ethnicity - Conceptualization (Coordinating Center; updated August 2011)
 Race/Ethnicity - Data Quality (Coordinating Center; updated August 2011)
 Racial/Ethnic Discrimination Measurement (UCLA will update per Steve Wallace)
Health-Related Concepts and Measures
 Cognition and Cognitive Function
o Measuring and Modeling Cognitive Function (Columbia U/Jeanne; updated April
2010)
o Issues in Measuring Cognition in Alzheimer’s Disease (Dan, under development)
 Affect/Emotion
o Measuring Depression (Columbia U/Jeanne; updated April 2007) Dan might be able
to make additions)
 Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life
o SF-36 in Older Minority Populations (UCLA; updated July 2010)
 Measuring Health Literacy (U PENN, updated June 2010)
Secondary Data Analysis and Available Datasets
 Secondary Datasets on Minority Aging Issues (UAB; Giyeon Kim, a RCMAR scholar, is
developing this based on a paper on this topic)
Methodological Issues Conducting Interventions to Reduce Disparities
 Methods for adapting interventions for vulnerable population groups (UCSF; updated
November, 2013)
Page 7
APPENDIX II: 2015 PRECONFERENCE WORKSHOP
Use of Well-Being Measures in Minority Aging Research
January 21, 2014 Updates
Funding has been received for this workshop based on the following abstract:
2015: Use of Well-being Measures in Minority Aging Research. As the interest in healthy
aging has grown, measuring subjective well-being has become part of identifying trends in aging
and evaluating the impacts of policy on health. A NIA/Brookings 2011 workshop concluded that
subjective well-being measures could be useful and appropriate for targeted populations and
policies, although the usefulness for the general population was uncertain.13 Key issues included
variations in how behavior is influenced by well-being in different groups, how to account for
adaptation to objectively bad circumstances, how different groups interpret survey questions on
well-being, and how to include equity considerations. The goals of this conference are to
introduce minority aging researchers to the usefulness and impact of research on well-being, to
connect leading researchers in the measuring well-being to scholars in minority aging, to
stimulate new research using state of the art measures on well-being relevant to minority
elderly populations, and improve the utility of research on well-being among elders of color in
policy and practice. The objectives are for participants to improve their understanding of wellbeing theory, methods, and application so that they are better able to incorporate well-being in
their research questions, analysis, and dissemination. The morning will be devoted to
presentations from leaders in the field of well-being measures reviewing key domains in wellbeing as they apply to minority aging. The afternoon will focus on practice skills and include a
small group breakout session led by the speakers to discuss to incorporate well-being measures
into their own minority aging research agendas.
Additional topics raised on January call: Are they differences in the meaning of SWB by
race/ethnic group?
The only confirmed speaker is Arthur Stone. We need to discuss the draft content and
speakers.
Topics
Speaker
Keynote: State of the Art in
Measuring Subjective Wellbeing
Economic Approaches
Arthur Stone, PhD,
CONFIRMED
Psychological Approaches
Cross national/cross cultural
perspectives
Carol Ryff, PhD
Carol Graham, PhD
Arie Kapteyn, PhD
Affiliation
Distinguished Professor, Stony Brook
University.; Chair, NAS panel on Measuring
subjective well-being
Prof., Econ.; Assoc. Dir. USC RCMAR; Former
Dir., Roybal Center, Financial Decision-making,
RAND
Professor, Psychology, Univ. of Wis.-Madison
College Park Professor, Univ. of Maryland
School of Public Policy
Page 8
Topics
Integrating minority aging
issues, Discussion by RCMAR
directors
Speaker
James S. Jackson, PhD
Spero Manson, PhD
Eliseo Pérez-Stable,MD
Testing measurement
equivalence
Subjective well-being vs.
health-related quality of life
Ron Hays, PhD
Measurement of well-being in
national datasets
Jacqui Smith, PhD
Anita Stewart, PhD
Affiliation
Professor, Univ. of Michigan & RCMAR
Distinguished Prof., U Colorado-Denver &
RCMAR
Professor, UC-San Francisco & RCMAR
Professor, GIM/HSR, UC-Los Angeles &
RCMAR
Professor, Institute on Health & Aging, UCSan Francisco & RCMAR
Professor, Psychology; Co-I, Health &
Retirement Study, Univ. of Michigan & RCMAR
In December, Arie Kapteyn circulated by email a copy of “Subjective Well-Being: Measuring
Happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience” (authored by Kapteyn, Lee, Tassot,
Vonkova, and Zamarrow) and a National Research Council of the National Academies report,
“Panel on measuring subjective well-being in a policy-relevant framework” (edited by Arthur A.
Stone and Christopher Mackie). Arie also noted that Arthur Stone is moving to USC from Stony
Brook.
Page 9