选择一种评估工具用于有严重精神障碍和多重损伤的成年人

S. Holmes
{"title":"选择一种评估工具用于有严重精神障碍和多重损伤的成年人","authors":"S. Holmes","doi":"10.1111/J.1468-3156.1992.TB00666.X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers the issues involved in assessment of adults with a profound mental handicap and multiple handicaps. Five criterion-referenced schedules are reviewed in terms of their theoretical basis, validity, reliability and age appropriateness. The findings show that none of the available assessments satisfactorily deal with all the relevant issues. Users of assessments must decide which are the most pertinent issues in each individual case. Selection of an assessment instrument is therefore likely to involve compromising the formal aspects of measurement or age appropriateness, as there are no assessment schedules available which encompass both these issues. Further research is required to either standardise existing age appropriate schedules or adapt the only reliable assessment available to make it relevant to the lives of adults.","PeriodicalId":318604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of The British Institute of Mental Handicap (apex)","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Selecting an Assessment Instrument for Use with Adults With a Profound Mental Handicap and Multiple Impairments\",\"authors\":\"S. Holmes\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/J.1468-3156.1992.TB00666.X\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper considers the issues involved in assessment of adults with a profound mental handicap and multiple handicaps. Five criterion-referenced schedules are reviewed in terms of their theoretical basis, validity, reliability and age appropriateness. The findings show that none of the available assessments satisfactorily deal with all the relevant issues. Users of assessments must decide which are the most pertinent issues in each individual case. Selection of an assessment instrument is therefore likely to involve compromising the formal aspects of measurement or age appropriateness, as there are no assessment schedules available which encompass both these issues. Further research is required to either standardise existing age appropriate schedules or adapt the only reliable assessment available to make it relevant to the lives of adults.\",\"PeriodicalId\":318604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of The British Institute of Mental Handicap (apex)\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-08-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of The British Institute of Mental Handicap (apex)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-3156.1992.TB00666.X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of The British Institute of Mental Handicap (apex)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/J.1468-3156.1992.TB00666.X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文考虑的问题涉及评估成人与严重的精神障碍和多重障碍。从理论基础、效度、信度和年龄适宜性等方面对五种标准参考表进行了综述。调查结果表明,现有的评估没有一项令人满意地处理了所有有关问题。评估的使用者必须决定在每个个案中哪些是最相关的问题。因此,评估工具的选择可能涉及折衷测量或年龄适宜性的正式方面,因为没有可用的评估时间表涵盖这两个问题。需要进行进一步的研究,要么使现有的适合年龄的时间表标准化,要么调整现有的唯一可靠的评估,使其与成年人的生活相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Selecting an Assessment Instrument for Use with Adults With a Profound Mental Handicap and Multiple Impairments
This paper considers the issues involved in assessment of adults with a profound mental handicap and multiple handicaps. Five criterion-referenced schedules are reviewed in terms of their theoretical basis, validity, reliability and age appropriateness. The findings show that none of the available assessments satisfactorily deal with all the relevant issues. Users of assessments must decide which are the most pertinent issues in each individual case. Selection of an assessment instrument is therefore likely to involve compromising the formal aspects of measurement or age appropriateness, as there are no assessment schedules available which encompass both these issues. Further research is required to either standardise existing age appropriate schedules or adapt the only reliable assessment available to make it relevant to the lives of adults.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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