Measuring adversity in the ABCD® Study: systematic review and recommendations for best practices.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Florence J Breslin, Erin L Ratliff, Zsofia P Cohen, Julie M Croff, Kara L Kerr
{"title":"Measuring adversity in the ABCD® Study: systematic review and recommendations for best practices.","authors":"Florence J Breslin, Erin L Ratliff, Zsofia P Cohen, Julie M Croff, Kara L Kerr","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02521-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Early life adversity (ELA) has substantial, lifelong impacts on mental and physical health and development. Data from the ABCD® Study will provide essential insights into these effects. Because the study lacks a unified adversity assessment, our objective was to use a critical, human-driven approach to identify variables that fit ELA domains measured in this study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We clarify best practices in measurement of adversity in the ABCD Study through the creation of adversity scores based on the well-established Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) questionnaire and another inclusive of broader ELA. Variables previously used to measure adversity in the ABCD dataset were determined via literature review. We assessed each variable to identify its utility in measuring domains of adversity at baseline and follow-up time points and by individual completing the assessment (i.e., youth or caregiver). Variables were selected that align with decades of ELA measurement, and therefore, can be used by research teams as measures of ELA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature review and critical analysis of items led to the development of three measures of ELA: an ACES-proxy score, a youth-reported ACEs-proxy score, and a broader ELA score (ELA<sup>+</sup>). We provide code using R to calculate these scores and their constituent domains for use in future ABCD adversity-related research.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The ABCD Study is one of the largest longitudinal studies of youth development, with data available for secondary analysis. Our review of existing measures and development of a coding schema will allow examination of ELA using this dataset, informing our understanding of risk, resilience, and prevention.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"77"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02521-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Early life adversity (ELA) has substantial, lifelong impacts on mental and physical health and development. Data from the ABCD® Study will provide essential insights into these effects. Because the study lacks a unified adversity assessment, our objective was to use a critical, human-driven approach to identify variables that fit ELA domains measured in this study.

Methods: We clarify best practices in measurement of adversity in the ABCD Study through the creation of adversity scores based on the well-established Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) questionnaire and another inclusive of broader ELA. Variables previously used to measure adversity in the ABCD dataset were determined via literature review. We assessed each variable to identify its utility in measuring domains of adversity at baseline and follow-up time points and by individual completing the assessment (i.e., youth or caregiver). Variables were selected that align with decades of ELA measurement, and therefore, can be used by research teams as measures of ELA.

Results: The literature review and critical analysis of items led to the development of three measures of ELA: an ACES-proxy score, a youth-reported ACEs-proxy score, and a broader ELA score (ELA+). We provide code using R to calculate these scores and their constituent domains for use in future ABCD adversity-related research.

Conclusions: The ABCD Study is one of the largest longitudinal studies of youth development, with data available for secondary analysis. Our review of existing measures and development of a coding schema will allow examination of ELA using this dataset, informing our understanding of risk, resilience, and prevention.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信