Reliability of the Dutch Version of the Matson Evaluation of Drug Side Effects in People With Intellectual Disabilities.

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
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.

智障人士药物副作用的荷兰文版Matson评估的可靠性。
背景:智力障碍患者经常使用精神药物。认识到这些人群的副作用可能具有挑战性,因为它们会对生活质量产生负面影响。一种准确的筛选工具对于识别精神药物对智力障碍患者的副作用至关重要。为此,Matson药物副作用评估(MEDS)是最可靠和研究最充分的工具。我们将med翻译成荷兰语,考虑到荷兰语版本的med必须准确并与其预期含义一致,避免多种解释;本研究旨在评估使用精神药物的智障人士的内部和相互信度。方法:由经认证的医学翻译机构对医学文献进行翻译和反译。两名研究人员在同一天三次给药。参与者是使用精神药物的智障人士。通过问卷收集人口统计和医疗数据。总域分、严重域分、持续域分和综合量表分的评分和计算参照MEDS评分手册。使用这些分数的类内相关系数(ICC)和95%置信区间来评估内部和内部的信度。结果:研究样本包括40名成人智力障碍患者。总体域评分的内部信度为良至优(ICC范围为0.873 ~ 1.000),总体复合量表评分的内部信度为优(ICC = 0.945)。总体域评分的量表间信度为中至优(ICC = 0.713 ~ 0.922),总体复合量表评分的量表间信度为好(ICC = 0.894)。结论:本研究显示荷兰版MEDS评分具有中等至优异的内部和内部信度。这证实了它作为临床医生识别和监测智力残疾者使用精神药物副作用的一种有价值的工具的潜力。我们建议在荷兰的临床实践和研究中使用荷兰版的MEDS。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
81
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信