Maria Louise Dieudonnée Hoekstra-van Duijn, Maureen Bernardina Gerardus Wissing, Patrick Jan Eugène Bindels, Dederieke Anne Maria Maes-Festen
{"title":"Reliability of the Dutch Version of the Matson Evaluation of Drug Side Effects in People With Intellectual Disabilities.","authors":"Maria Louise Dieudonnée Hoekstra-van Duijn, Maureen Bernardina Gerardus Wissing, Patrick Jan Eugène Bindels, Dederieke Anne Maria Maes-Festen","doi":"10.1111/jir.13256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>People with intellectual disabilities often use psychotropic medications. Recognising side effects in this population can be challenging while they can negatively impact the quality of life. An accurate screening instrument is crucial to identify side effects of psychotropic medication in people with intellectual disabilities. For this purpose, the Matson Evaluation of Drug Side Effects (MEDS) is the most reliable and well-researched instrument. We translated the MEDS into Dutch, considering that the Dutch version of the MEDS must be accurate and aligned with its intended meaning, avoiding multiple interpretations; this study aimed to assess its intrarater and interrater reliabilities in people with intellectual disabilities using psychotropic medication.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A certified medical translation agency performed translation and back-translation of the MEDS. Two researchers administered the MEDS three times on the same day. Participants were people with intellectual disabilities using psychotropic medication. Demographic and medical data were collected via questionnaires. Scoring and calculation of total domain scores, severity domain scores, duration domain scores and composite scale scores followed the MEDS manual. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and 95% confidence intervals of these scores were used to assess intrarater and interrater reliabilities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study sample included 40 adults with intellectual disabilities. Intrarater reliability was good to excellent for total domain scores (ICCs ranging from 0.873 to 1.000) and excellent for the total composite scale score (ICC = 0.945). Interrater reliability was moderate to excellent for total domain scores (ICCs ranging from 0.713 to 0.922) and good for the total composite scale score (ICC = 0.894).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study demonstrated moderate to excellent intrarater and interrater reliabilities for the Dutch version of the MEDS. This confirms its potential as a valuable instrument for clinicians to identify and monitor side effects in people with intellectual disabilities using psychotropic medication. We recommend the use of the Dutch version of the MEDS in both Dutch clinical practice and research for this purpose.</p>","PeriodicalId":16163,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.13256","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: People with intellectual disabilities often use psychotropic medications. Recognising side effects in this population can be challenging while they can negatively impact the quality of life. An accurate screening instrument is crucial to identify side effects of psychotropic medication in people with intellectual disabilities. For this purpose, the Matson Evaluation of Drug Side Effects (MEDS) is the most reliable and well-researched instrument. We translated the MEDS into Dutch, considering that the Dutch version of the MEDS must be accurate and aligned with its intended meaning, avoiding multiple interpretations; this study aimed to assess its intrarater and interrater reliabilities in people with intellectual disabilities using psychotropic medication.
Methods: A certified medical translation agency performed translation and back-translation of the MEDS. Two researchers administered the MEDS three times on the same day. Participants were people with intellectual disabilities using psychotropic medication. Demographic and medical data were collected via questionnaires. Scoring and calculation of total domain scores, severity domain scores, duration domain scores and composite scale scores followed the MEDS manual. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and 95% confidence intervals of these scores were used to assess intrarater and interrater reliabilities.
Results: The study sample included 40 adults with intellectual disabilities. Intrarater reliability was good to excellent for total domain scores (ICCs ranging from 0.873 to 1.000) and excellent for the total composite scale score (ICC = 0.945). Interrater reliability was moderate to excellent for total domain scores (ICCs ranging from 0.713 to 0.922) and good for the total composite scale score (ICC = 0.894).
Conclusions: This study demonstrated moderate to excellent intrarater and interrater reliabilities for the Dutch version of the MEDS. This confirms its potential as a valuable instrument for clinicians to identify and monitor side effects in people with intellectual disabilities using psychotropic medication. We recommend the use of the Dutch version of the MEDS in both Dutch clinical practice and research for this purpose.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is devoted exclusively to the scientific study of intellectual disability and publishes papers reporting original observations in this field. The subject matter is broad and includes, but is not restricted to, findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies, and ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the treatment and prevention of intellectual disability and of associated impairments and disabilities, and/or inform public policy and practice. Expert reviews on themes in which recent research has produced notable advances will be included. Such reviews will normally be by invitation.