Behaviour rating scales for older people with dementia: which is the best for use by nurses?

There is increasing awareness of the importance of disruptive behaviour in people with dementia and the need for rating scales to accurately and reliably measure this behaviour. When rating scales are to be administered by nurses, scale characteristics must take into account the limitations of the nursing role and the nature of the environment in which nurses work. This paper reviews thirty-one rating scales that have been used to measure behaviour in dementia. From this analysis, five scales were identified as suitable for use by nurses when measuring disruptive behaviour in older people with dementia.

Escalas de Avaliação da Interação Mãe-Bebé: versão portuguesa das Interaction Rating Scales

As Escalas de Avaliação da Interação Mãe-Bebé constituem a versão portuguesa das Interaction Rating Scales, propostas por Field (1980), e têm por objetivo avaliar a interação mãe-bebé, aos 3 meses de idade do bebé. As Escalas de Avaliação da Interação Mãe-Bebé foram administradas a 51 díades mãe-bebé aos 3, 6 e 12 meses pós-parto. A versão portuguesa das escalas mostrou elevados índices de consistência interna – Alfa de Cronbach 0,85 (IRSff bebé), 0,91 (IRSff mãe), 0,87 (IRSal bebé), 0,82 (IRSal mãe), assim como elevada fidelidade e validade concorrente e preditiva. As Escalas de Avaliação da Interação Mãe-Bebé assume-se, assim, como um instrumento robusto na avaliação da interação mãe-bebé, na situação de interação face-a-face e na situação de interação alimentar, podendo ser utilizadas em diferentes amostras e contextos, clínicos e de investigação.

French version validation of the psychotic symptom rating scales (PSYRATS) for outpatients with persistent psychotic symptoms.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Most scales that assess the presence and severity of psychotic symptoms often measure a broad range of experiences and behaviours, something that restricts the detailed measurement of specific symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations. The Psychotic Symptom Rating Scales (PSYRATS) is a clinical assessment tool that focuses on the detailed measurement of these core symptoms. The goal of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the French version of the PSYRATS. METHODS: A sample of 103 outpatients suffering from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders and presenting persistent psychotic symptoms over the previous three months was assessed using the PSYRATS. Seventy-five sample participants were also assessed with the Positive And Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS). RESULTS: ICCs were superior to .90 for all items of the PSYRATS. Factor analysis replicated the factorial structure of the original version of the delusions scale. Similar to previous replications, the factor structure of the hallucinations scale was partially replicated. Convergent validity indicated that some specific PSYRATS items do not correlate with the PANSS delusions or hallucinations. The distress items of the PSYRATS are negatively correlated with the grandiosity scale of the PANSS. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are limited by the relatively small sample size as well as the selection of participants with persistent symptoms. The French version of the PSYRATS partially replicates previously published results. Differences in factor structure of the hallucinations scale might be explained by greater variability of its elements. The future development of the scale should take into account the presence of grandiosity in order to better capture details of the psychotic experience.

A comparison of functional behaviour assessment rating scales in a sample of children and youth with autism spectrum disorders

This study sought to compare the results of the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS; Durand & Crimmins, 1988), Questions About Behavior Function Scale (QABF; Matson & Vollmer, 1996) and Functional Analysis Screening Tool (FAST; Iwata & Deleon, 1996), when completed by parent informants in a sample of children and youth with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) who display challenging behaviour. Results indicated that there was low agreement between the functional hypotheses derived from each of three measures. In addition, correlations between functionally analogous scales were substantially lower than expected, while correlations between non-analogous subscales were stronger than anticipated. As indicated by this study, clinicians choosing to use FBA questionnaires to assess behavioural function, may not obtain accurate functional hypotheses, potentially resulting in ineffective intervention plans. The current study underscores the caution that must be taken when asking parents to complete these questionnaires to determine the function(s) of challenging behaviour for children/youth with ASD.

The utility of social behavior rating scales for children who are deaf and hard of hearing

This independent study provides an overview of the social-emotional and theory of mind development of children birth through high school and evaluates the utility of social-emotional rating scales in the classroom for children who are deaf and hard of hearing.

German validation of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) II: reliability, validity, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity

The German version of the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scales (CAARS) has proven to show very high model fit in confirmative factor analyses with the established factors inattention/memory problems, hyperactivity/restlessness, impulsivity/emotional lability, and problems with self-concept in both large healthy control and ADHD patient samples. This study now presents data on the psychometric properties of the German CAARS-self-report (CAARS-S) and observer-report (CAARS-O) questionnaires.

Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study

OBJECTIVE: To study the inter-observer variation related to extraction of continuous and numerical rating scale data from trial reports for use in meta-analyses. DESIGN: Observer agreement study. DATA SOURCES: A random sample of 10 Cochrane reviews that presented a result as a standardised mean difference (SMD), the protocols for the reviews and the trial reports (n=45) were retrieved. DATA EXTRACTION: Five experienced methodologists and five PhD students independently extracted data from the trial reports for calculation of the first SMD result in each review. The observers did not have access to the reviews but to the protocols, where the relevant outcome was highlighted. The agreement was analysed at both trial and meta-analysis level, pairing the observers in all possible ways (45 pairs, yielding 2025 pairs of trials and 450 pairs of meta-analyses). Agreement was defined as SMDs that differed less than 0.1 in their point estimates or confidence intervals. RESULTS: The agreement was 53% at trial level and 31% at meta-analysis level. Including all pairs, the median disagreement was SMD=0.22 (interquartile range 0.07-0.61). The experts agreed somewhat more than the PhD students at trial level (61% v 46%), but not at meta-analysis level. Important reasons for disagreement were differences in selection of time points, scales, control groups, and type of calculations; whether to include a trial in the meta-analysis; and data extraction errors made by the observers. In 14 out of the 100 SMDs calculated at the meta-analysis level, individual observers reached different conclusions than the originally published review. CONCLUSIONS: Disagreements were common and often larger than the effect of commonly used treatments. Meta-analyses using SMDs are prone to observer variation and should be interpreted with caution. The reliability of meta-analyses might be improved by having more detailed review protocols, more than one observer, and statistical expertise.

Body image rating scales to assess obesity

Obesity prevalence in the U.S. has increased during the last three decades with major impact on public health. Screening for obesity in a population with unknown weight status can be time- and resource-consuming, but the information is valuable for prioritizing and allocating scarce resources. The challenge remains to properly assess obesity with the available methods. Body Image Rating Scales (BIRS) have initially been developed to assess body image disturbances, but also seem useful as an alternative method in assessing obesity prevalence. Several different BIRS exists. In this project I reviewed the literature that exists regarding the use of BIRS, and its advantages and limitations for the assessment of obesity status with regards to BMI. The result yielded nine publications that examined eight different scales and their correlation with BMI, ranging from r=.59 for self-reported BMI to r=.94 for measured BMI. One concern is the lack of standardization of this method to assess obesity, given the range of different scales. While many methods for obesity assessment are available, the simplicity, ease of use and cost-effectiveness of BIRS make it very appealing. BIRS remain a potentially attractive option to assess the weight status of a large population with minimal requirements in assets and time, especially in situations where measuring instruments are not available, or when height or weight could not be recalled.^

A bibliography of mental tests and rating scales.

Mode of access: Internet.

Cooperative muskmelon breeding program in Texas, 1955-67: new rating scales and index selection facilitate development of disease-resistant cultivars adapted to different geographical areas

Bibliography: p. 24-25.

Evaluating the external validity of comorbid disorders in youth using rating scales and behavior observations

To evaluate the theoretical underpinnings of current categorical approaches to classify childhood psychopathological conditions, this dissertation examined whether children with a single diagnosis of an anxiety disorder (ANX only) and children with an anxiety diagnosis comorbid with other diagnoses (i.e., anxiety + anxiety disorder [ANX + ANX], anxiety + depressive disorder [ANX + DEP], and anxiety + disruptive disorder [ANX + EXT]) could be differentiated using external validation criteria of clinical phenomenology (i.e., levels of anxiety, depression, and internalizing, externalizing and total behavior problems). This study further examined whether the four groups could be differentiated in terms of their interaction patterns with their parents and peers, respectively. The sample consisted of 129 youth and their parents who presented to the Child Anxiety and Phobia Program (CAPP) housed within the Child and Family Psychosocial Research Center at Florida International University, Miami. Youth were between the ages of 8 and 14 years old. A battery of questionnaires was used to assess participants' clinical presentation in terms of levels of anxiety, depression, and internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Family and peer interaction were evaluated through rating scales and through behavior observation tasks. Statistics based on the parameter estimates of the structured equation models indicated that all the comorbid groups were significantly different from the pure anxiety disorder group when it came to depression indices of clinical phenomenology. Further, significant differences appeared mainly in terms of the ANX + DEP comorbid group relative to the other comorbid groups. In terms of Parent-child interaction the ANX + EXT and the ANX + DEP comorbid groups were differentiated from the pure anxiety disorder and ANX + ANX comorbid group when it came to the appraisal of the parent/child relationship by the parent, and the acceptance subscale according to the mother report. In terms of peer-child interaction the ANX + EXT and the ANX + DEP comorbid groups were statistically significantly different from the pure anxiety disorder only when it came to the positive interactions and the social skills as rated by mother. Limitations and future research recommendations are discussed.

Portuguese version of the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98: reliability and validity

Objective To assess the validity and the reliability of the Portuguese version of the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98). Methods The scale was translated into Portuguese and back-translated into English. After assessing its face validity, five diagnostic groups (n = 64; delirium, depression, dementia, schizophrenia and others) were evaluated by two independent researchers blinded to the diagnosis. Diagnosis and severity of delirium as measured by the DRS-R-98 were compared to clinical diagnosis, Mini-Mental State Exam, Confusion Assessment Method, and Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI). Results Mean and rnedian DRS-R-98 total scores significantly distinguished delirium from the other groups (p < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability (ICC between 0.9 and 1) and internal consistency (alpha = 0.91) were very high. DRS-R-98 severity scores correlated highly with the CGI. Mean DRS-R-98 severity scores during delirium differed significantly (p < 0.01) from the post-treatment values. The area under the curve established by ROC analysis was 0.99 and using the cut-off Value of 20 the scale showed sensitivity and specificity of 92.6% and 94.6%, respectively. Conclusion The Portuguese version of the DRS-R-98 is a valid and reliable measure of delirium that distinguishes delirium from other disorders and is sensitive to change in delirium severity, which may be of great value for longitudinal studies. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cross-cultural adaptation to Brazil of Medication Adherence Rating Scale for psychiatric patients

Objective The purpose of this research was to make a cross-cultural adaptation of the Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) for psychiatric patients to the Brazilian context. Methods The procedure consisted of four phases: translation of the original scale, back-translation, review by an Expert Committee and Pre-test study with a patients’ sample. Results The Expert Committee corrected the items’ translation when necessary and modified the scale administration format and its instructions from self-report to face-to-face interview form in order to ensure easy understanding by the target population. During Pre-test, the instructions and most of the items were properly understood by patients, with the exception of three of them which had to be changed in order to ensure better understanding. The Pre-test sample was composed by 30 psychiatric patients, with severe and persistent disorders mainly single (46.7%), female (60.0%), with a mean age of 43.8 years old and an average of five years of education. Conclusion The Brazilian version of MARS scale is now adapted to the Brazilian Portuguese language and culture and is easily understood by the psychiatric target population. It is necessary to do further research to evaluate the scale psychometric qualities of validity and reliability in order to use it in Brazil.

Validation study of the French version of the observer-rater scales measuring coping and cognitive errors (CE-CAP) on a non-clinical population

This study examined the validity and reliability of the French version of two observer-rated measures developed to assess cognitive errors (cognitive errors rating system [CERS]) [6] and coping action patterns (coping action patterns rating system [CAPRS]) [22,24]. The CE measures 14 cognitive errors, broken down according to their valence positive or negative (see the definitions by A.T. Beck), and the CAP measures 12 coping categories, based on an comprehensive review literature, each broken down into three levels of action (affective, behavioural, cognitive). Thirty (N = 30) subjects recruited in a community sample participated in the study. They were interviewed according to a standardized clinical protocol: these interviews were transcribed and analysed with both observer-rated systems. Results showed that the inter-rater reliability of the two measures is good and that their internal validity is satisfactory, due to a non-significant canonical correlation between CAP and CE. With regard to discriminant validity, we found a non-significant canonical correlation between CAPRS and CISS, one of most widely used self-report questionnaire measuring coping. The same can be said for the correlation with a self-report questionnaire measuring symptoms (SCL-90-R). These results confirm the absence of confounds in the assessment of cognitive errors and of coping as assessed by these observer-rated scales and add an argument in favour of the French validation of the CE-CAP rating scales. (C) 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.