Search

We examine differential validity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) diagnoses assessed by the fully-structured Composite International Diagnostic Interview Version 3.0 (CIDI) among Latino, non-Latino Black, and non-Latino White adolescents in comparison to gold standard diagnoses derived from the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-age Children (K-SADS). Results are based on the National Comorbidity Survey Replication Adolescent Supplement, a national US survey of adolescent mental health. Clinicians re-interviewed 347 adolescent/parent dyads with the K-SADS. Sensitivity and/or specificity of CIDI diagnoses varied significantly by ethnicity/race for four of ten disorders. Modifications to algorithms sometimes reduced bias in prevalence estimates, but at the cost of reducing individual-level concordance. These findings document the importance of assessing fully-structured diagnostic instruments for differential accuracy in ethnic/racial subgroups. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In assessing the mechanism of treatment efficacy in randomized clinical trials, investigators often perform mediation analyses by analyzing if the significant intent-to-treat treatment effect on outcome occurs through or around a third intermediate or mediating variable: indirect and direct effects, respectively. Standard mediation analyses assume sequential ignorability, i.e. conditional on covariates the intermediate or mediating factor is randomly assigned, as is the treatment in a randomized clinical trial. This research focuses on the application of the principal stratification (PS) approach for estimating the direct effect of a randomized treatment but without the standard sequential ignorability assumption. This approach is used to estimate the direct effect of treatment as a difference between expectations of potential outcomes within latent subgroups of participants for whom the intermediate variable behavior would be constant, regardless of the randomized treatment assignment. Using a Bayesian estimation procedure, we also assess the sensitivity of results based on the PS approach to heterogeneity of the variances among these principal strata. We assess this approach with simulations and apply it to two psychiatric examples. Both examples and the simulations indicated robustness of our findings to the homogeneous variance assumption. However, simulations showed that the magnitude of treatment effects derived under the PS approach were sensitive to model mis-specification. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivated by the need to meaningfully implement the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) definition of health care disparity, this paper proposes statistical frameworks that lay out explicitly the needed causal assumptions for defining disparity measures. Our key emphasis is that a scientifically defensible disparity measure must take into account the direction of the causal relationship between allowable covariates that are not considered to be contributors to disparity and non-allowable covariates that are considered to be contributors to disparity, to avoid flawed disparity measures based on implausible populations that are not relevant for clinical or policy decisions. However, these causal relationships are usually unknown and undetectable from observed data. Consequently, we must make strong causal assumptions in order to proceed. Two frameworks are proposed in this paper, one is the conditional disparity framework under the assumption that allowable covariates impact non-allowable covariates but not vice versa. The other is the marginal disparity framework under the assumption that non-allowable covariates impact allowable ones but not vice versa. We establish theoretical conditions under which the two disparity measures are the same and present a theoretical example showing that the difference between the two disparity measures can be arbitrarily large. Using data from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Survey, we also provide an example where the conditional disparity is misled by Simpson's paradox, whereas the marginal disparity approach handles it correctly. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lin et al. (http://www.biostatsresearch.com/upennbiostat/papers/, 2006) proposed a nested Markov compliance class model in the Imbens and Rubin compliance class model framework to account for time-varying subject noncompliance in longitudinal randomized intervention studies. We use superclasses, or latent compliance class principal strata, to describe longitudinal compliance patterns, and time-varying compliance classes are assumed to depend on the history of compliance. In this paper, we search for good subject-level baseline predictors of these superclasses and also examine the relationship between these superclasses and all-cause mortality. Since the superclasses are completely latent in all subjects, we utilize multiple imputation techniques to draw inferences. We apply this approach to a randomized intervention study for elderly primary care patients with depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivated by the need to meaningfully implement the Institute of Medicine's (IOM's) definition of health care disparity, this paper proposes statistical frameworks that lay out explicitly the needed causal assumptions for defining disparity measures. Our key emphasis is that a scientifically defensible disparity measure must take into account the direction of the causal relationship between allowable covariates that are not considered to be contributors to disparity and non-allowable covariates that are considered to be contributors to disparity, to avoid flawed disparity measures based on implausible populations that are not relevant for clinical or policy decisions. However, these causal relationships are usually unknown and undetectable from observed data. Consequently, we must make strong causal assumptions in order to proceed. Two frameworks are proposed in this paper, one is the conditional disparity framework under the assumption that allowable covariates impact non-allowable covariates but not vice versa. The other is the marginal disparity framework under the assumption that non-allowable covariates impact allowable ones but not vice versa. We establish theoretical conditions under which the two disparity measures are the same and present a theoretical example showing that the difference between the two disparity measures can be arbitrarily large. Using data from the Collaborative Psychiatric Epidemiology Survey, we also provide an example where the conditional disparity is misled by Simpson's paradox, whereas the marginal disparity approach handles it correctly., Statistics