Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Spinal and Bulbar Muscular Atrophy Functional Rating Scale

Objective Anosognosia is a common phenomenon in individuals with dementia. Anosognosia Questionnaire for dementia (AQ-D) is a well-known scale for evaluating anosognosia. This study aimed to establish a Korean version of the AQ-D (AQ-D-K) and to evaluate the reliability and validity of the AQ-D-K in patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) dementia.Methods We translated the original English version of AQ-D into Korean (AQ-D-K). Eighty-four subjects with very mild or mild AD dementia and their caregivers participated. Reliability of AQ-D-K was assessed by internal consistency and one-month test-retest reliability. Construct validity and concurrent validity were also evaluated.Results Internal consistencies of the AQ-D-K patient form and caregiver form were high (Cronbach alpha 0.95 and 0.93, respectively). The test-retest reliability of AQ-D-K measured by intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.84. Three factors were identified: 1) anosognosia of instrumental activity of daily living; 2) anosognosia basic activity of daily living; and 3) anosognosia of depression and disinhibition. AQ-D-K score was significantly correlated with the clinician-rated anosognosia rating scale (ARS), center for epidemiological studies-depression scale (CES-D) and state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI).Conclusion The findings suggest that the AQ-D-K is a reliable and valid scale for evaluating anosognosia for AD dementia patients using Korean language.

Download Full-text

Adaptation and validation of the Korean Version of the Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (K-BDRS)

European Psychiatry ◽

10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.01.592 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 33 (S1) ◽

pp. s236-s237

Author(s):

W.M. Bahk ◽

M.D. Kim ◽

Y.E. Jung ◽

Y.S. Woo ◽

J. Lee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Bipolar Disorder ◽

Depressive Symptoms ◽

Psychometric Properties ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Bipolar Depression ◽

Depression Scale ◽

Reliability And Validity ◽

Hamilton Depression Scale ◽

Young Mania ◽

Korean Version

ObjectivesThe Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS) is a scale for assessment of the clinical characteristics of bipolar depression. The primary aims of this study were to describe the development of the Korean version of the BDRS (K-BDRS) and to establish more firmly its psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity.MethodsThe study included 141 patients (62 male and 79 female) who had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, were currently experiencing symptoms of depression, and were interviewed using the K-BDRS. Other measures included the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), and the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS). Additionally, the internal consistency, concurrent validity, inter-rater reliability, and test-retest reliability of the K-BDRS were evaluated.ResultsThe Cronbach's α-coefficient for the K-BDRS was 0.866, the K-BDRS exhibited strong correlations with the HAMD (r = 0.788) and MADRS (r = 0.877), and the mixed symptoms score of the K-BDRS was significantly correlated with the YMRS (r = 0.611). An exploratory factor analysis revealed three factors that corresponded to psychological depressive symptoms, somatic depressive symptoms, and mixed symptoms.ConclusionsThe present findings suggest that the K-BDRS has good psychometric properties and is a valid and reliable tool for assessing depressive symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Download Full-text

The Korean Version of the Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale: Reliability and Validity

Psychiatry Investigation ◽

10.4306/pi.2017.14.2.141 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 141 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Eun-Chan Kang ◽

Sung-Jin Kim ◽

Young-Soo Seo ◽

Sung-Soo Jung ◽

Beom-Joo Seo ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Rating Scale ◽

Reliability And Validity ◽

Korean Version ◽

Scale Reliability

Download Full-text

The Validation Study of the Substance Abuse Treatment Self-Efficacy Scale (SATSES) - Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version -

The J of Korean Alcohol Science ◽

10.15524/ksas.2017.18.1.097 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

pp. 97-114

Author(s):

Hye Chung Cho ◽

◽

Eun Jeung Choi ◽

Yong Jin Kim

Keyword(s):

Substance Abuse ◽

Substance Abuse Treatment ◽

Validation Study ◽

Self Efficacy ◽

Reliability And Validity ◽

Korean Version ◽

Abuse Treatment

Download Full-text

Reliability and validity of Japanese version of Unified Multiple System Atrophy Rating Scale

Neurology and Clinical Neuroscience ◽

10.1111/ncn3.12477 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Ayaka Chikada ◽

Jun Mitsui ◽

Takashi Matsukawa ◽

Hiroyuki Ishiura ◽

Tatsushi Toda ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple System Atrophy ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Reliability And Validity ◽

Japanese Version

Download Full-text

The Clinician’s Subjective Experience during the Interaction with Adolescent Psychiatric Patients: Validity and Reliability of the Assessment of Clinician’s Subjective Experience

Psychopathology ◽

10.1159/000513769 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-8

Author(s):

Angelo Picardi ◽

Sara Panunzi ◽

Sofia Misuraca ◽

Chiara Di Maggio ◽

Andrea Maugeri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Examination ◽

Subjective Experience ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Mood State ◽

Psychiatric Patients ◽

Temporal Stability ◽

Young Patients ◽

Reliability And Validity ◽

Mental States ◽

Validity And Reliability

Introduction: The last decade has witnessed a resurgence of interest in the clinician’s subjectivity and its role in the diagnostic assessment. Integrating the criteriological, third-person approach to patient evaluation and psychiatric diagnosis with other approaches that take into account the patient’s subjective and intersubjective experience may bear particular importance in the assessment of very young patients. The ACSE (Assessment of Clinician’s Subjective Experience) instrument may provide a practical way to probe the intersubjective field of the clinical examination; however, its reliability and validity in child and adolescent psychiatrists seeing very young patients is still to be determined. Methods: Thirty-three clinicians and 278 first-contact patients aged 12–17 years participated in this study. The clinicians completed the ACSE instrument and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale after seeing the patient, and the Profile of Mood State (POMS) just before seeing the patient and immediately after. The ACSE was completed again for 45 patients over a short (1–4 days) retest interval. Results: All ACSE scales showed high internal consistency and moderate to high temporal stability. Also, they displayed meaningful correlations with the changes in conceptually related POMS scales during the clinical examination. Discussion: The findings corroborate and extend previous work on adult patients and suggest that the ACSE provides a valid and reliable measure of the clinician’s subjective experience in adolescent psychiatric practice, too. The instrument may prove to be useful to help identify patients in the early stages of psychosis, in whom subtle alterations of being with others may be the only detectable sign. Future studies are needed to determine the feasibility and usefulness of integrating the ACSE within current approaches to the evaluation of at-risk mental states.

Download Full-text

A comparison of the ‘Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression’ and the ‘Montgomery-Asberg Depression rating Scale’

Acta Neuropsychiatrica ◽

10.1017/s0924270800036358 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 11 (1) ◽

pp. 34-37 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

I.P.A.M. Huijbrechts ◽

P.M.J. Haffmans ◽

K. Jonker ◽

A. van Dijke ◽

E. Hoencamp

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Clinical Global Impression ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Reliability And Validity ◽

Structured Interview ◽

Clinical Impression ◽

Clinical Relationship ◽

Hamilton Rating Scale ◽

Depressive States

SummaryAlthough the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) is the most frequently used rating scale for quantifying depressive states, it has been criticized for its reliability and its usability in clinical practice. This criticism is less applying to the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Goal of the present study is to investigate the reliability and validity, and clinical relationship between the HRSD and the MADRS. For 60 out-patients with diagnosed depression (DSM IV296.2x, 296.3x, 300.40 and 311.00), the HRSD and MADRS were scored at baseline and 6 weeks later by an independent rater according to a structured interview. Also the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) was assessed by a psychiatrist. Satisfying agreement was found between the totalscores (r= .75, p>.000 en r=.92, p>.000 respectively, at baseline and 6 weeks later). Furthermore agreement was found between the items of both scales, and these agree with the clinical impression. The reliability of the MADRS is more stable than the reliability of the HRSD (α = .6367 and α =.8900 vs α = .2193 and α = .8362 at baseline and at endpoint respectively). Considering the ease of scoring both scales in one interview and the widely international use of the HRSD, scoring both the HRSD and the MADRS to measure the severity of a depression seems to be an acceptabel covenant.

Download Full-text