What it says: making up a score by adding up other things. Despite that simplicity, it’s a bit esoteric which brings us to the details.
Details #
I think the term is used in two slightly different ways, the second more commonly than the first but the first is simpler!
- #1. Any multi-item measure or score and where the composite, the composition, is fixed and repeated in all uses of the score.
- #2. To cover the situation in which a study is pooling a particular set of variables, measures, scores and not intending that the scores will be used for comparison in future work.
#1. Multi-item measures #
I actually don’t think the term is often used for this as we have reached the situation in which these are default ways of measuring things in the well-being, mental health and therapy realm.
#2. Ad hoc combining of other variables #
This is much less common than the use of multi-item measures but is more where this term is used. In a fairly diagnostically oriented study it might be that the investigators had participants completing four measures, let’s say (just fantasising of course) the PHQ-9, GAD-7, panic questions and the WSAS. So they have measures (themselves each composite, i.e. multi-item) of depression, anxiety, panic and “work and social adjustment”. However, that’s complicated and people might want just one summary measure and the investigators might just add the four separate scores to create on composite summary measure but they might not intend that any other studies would use that composite. They might then standardise all four variables using the means and SDs that they had for each of the four variables at first contact (see standardising/normalising) to get some sort of balance in the contribution each makes to the composite.
Try also #
Cronbach’s alpha
Factor analysis
Standardising/normalising
Chapters #
Not really mentioned in the OMbook
Online resources #
None current (or likely?!)
Dates #
First created 9.iv.24.
