Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Estimating the Joint Probability Density for Index Construction: Some Simplifications Using the TWEAK as Example.

Created on 22 Jun 2026

Authors

Maureen Murdoch, Barbara Ann Clothier, Siamak Noorbaloochi

Published in

International journal of methods in psychiatric research. Volume 35. Issue 2. Pages e70081.

Abstract

Index construction using the joint probability density (JPD) method is extremely robust and, unlike confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) or item response theory (IRT), puts few restrictions on underlying data. When input variables' numbers are large, however, JPD estimation can be difficult.
To assess two simplifications of JPD estimation using the TWEAK, a well validated screener for problematic drinking, and to compare these against the fully estimated JPD, the conventionally scored TWEAK, and TWEAK scores estimated through CFA and IRT.
Mailed survey of a nationally representative panel of 410 gender-stratified, post-9/11 Veterans with pending disability claims for posttraumatic stress disorder.
Summary statistics for the TWEAK's fully estimated JPD and the two simplifications were very similar, and Spearman's correlations were 0.97-1.00 (ps < 0.001). Spearman's correlations across the remaining scoring approaches were -0.84 to -0.90 (ps < 0.001). All 6 scoring approaches identified differences in men's TWEAK scores by alcohol use diagnosis (ps ≤ 0.02); the 3 JPD approaches did not reach statistical significance in the women. IRT analysis identified local dependence issues.
Our simplified estimations of JPD score were very similar to the fully estimated JPD and much easier to calculate. All 3 JPD estimations were highly concordant with more traditional scoring approaches.

PMID:
42324792
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 22 Jun 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 1
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement