Lowenstein沟通量表的信度与效度。

IF 3 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Anna Oksamitni, Hiela Lehrer, Ilana Gelernter, Michal Scharf, Lilach Front, Olga Bendit-Goldenberg, Amiram Catz, Elena Aidinoff
{"title":"Lowenstein沟通量表的信度与效度。","authors":"Anna Oksamitni, Hiela Lehrer, Ilana Gelernter, Michal Scharf, Lilach Front, Olga Bendit-Goldenberg, Amiram Catz, Elena Aidinoff","doi":"10.3390/neurolint17080116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>The Lowenstein Communication Scale (LCS) is a tool for the evaluation of communicative performance in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC). This study investigated the reliability and validity of the LCS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated 23 inpatients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) and 18 in a minimally conscious state (MCS), at admission to a Consciousness Rehabilitation Department and one month later. The evaluations included assessments of LCS by two raters, and of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) by one rater.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total inter-rater agreement in LCS task scoring was found in 58-100% of the patients. Cohen's kappa values were >0.6 for most tasks. High correlations were found between the two raters on total scores and most subscales (r = 0.599-1.000, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and the differences between them were small. LCS subscales and total score intraclass correlations (ICC) were high. Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's α > 0.7) for most LCS subscales and total scores. Moderate to strong correlations were found between LCS and CRS-R scores (r = 0.554-0.949, <i>p</i> < 0.05), and the difference in responsiveness between LCS and CRS-R was non-significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings indicate that the LCS is reliable and valid, making it a valuable clinical and research assessment tool for patients with DOC.</p>","PeriodicalId":19130,"journal":{"name":"Neurology International","volume":"17 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12388834/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and Validity of the Lowenstein Communication Scale.\",\"authors\":\"Anna Oksamitni, Hiela Lehrer, Ilana Gelernter, Michal Scharf, Lilach Front, Olga Bendit-Goldenberg, Amiram Catz, Elena Aidinoff\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/neurolint17080116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/objectives: </strong>The Lowenstein Communication Scale (LCS) is a tool for the evaluation of communicative performance in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC). This study investigated the reliability and validity of the LCS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated 23 inpatients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) and 18 in a minimally conscious state (MCS), at admission to a Consciousness Rehabilitation Department and one month later. The evaluations included assessments of LCS by two raters, and of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) by one rater.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Total inter-rater agreement in LCS task scoring was found in 58-100% of the patients. Cohen's kappa values were >0.6 for most tasks. High correlations were found between the two raters on total scores and most subscales (r = 0.599-1.000, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and the differences between them were small. LCS subscales and total score intraclass correlations (ICC) were high. Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's α > 0.7) for most LCS subscales and total scores. Moderate to strong correlations were found between LCS and CRS-R scores (r = 0.554-0.949, <i>p</i> < 0.05), and the difference in responsiveness between LCS and CRS-R was non-significant.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings indicate that the LCS is reliable and valid, making it a valuable clinical and research assessment tool for patients with DOC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19130,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurology International\",\"volume\":\"17 8\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12388834/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurology International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint17080116\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurology International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/neurolint17080116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景/目的:洛温斯坦沟通量表(Lowenstein Communication Scale, LCS)是一种评估意识障碍(DOC)患者沟通表现的工具。本研究考察了LCS的信度和效度。方法:我们评估了23例无反应性清醒综合征(UWS)和18例最低意识状态(MCS)的住院患者,这些患者在入院时和一个月后进入意识康复科。评估包括两名评分者对LCS的评估,以及一名评分者对昏迷恢复量表(CRS-R)的评估。结果:58 ~ 100%的患者在LCS任务评分上完全一致。Cohen的kappa值在大多数任务中都是0.6。两种评分者在总分和大部分子量表上存在高度相关性(r = 0.599 ~ 1.000, p < 0.001),且差异较小。LCS亚量表和总分类内相关性(ICC)较高。大多数LCS分量表和总分的内部一致性是可接受的(Cronbach's α > 0.7)。LCS与CRS-R评分存在中至强相关性(r = 0.554 ~ 0.949, p < 0.05),而LCS与CRS-R的反应性差异无统计学意义。结论:本研究结果表明LCS是可靠有效的,是一种有价值的临床和研究评估工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reliability and Validity of the Lowenstein Communication Scale.

Background/objectives: The Lowenstein Communication Scale (LCS) is a tool for the evaluation of communicative performance in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC). This study investigated the reliability and validity of the LCS.

Methods: We evaluated 23 inpatients with unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS) and 18 in a minimally conscious state (MCS), at admission to a Consciousness Rehabilitation Department and one month later. The evaluations included assessments of LCS by two raters, and of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R) by one rater.

Results: Total inter-rater agreement in LCS task scoring was found in 58-100% of the patients. Cohen's kappa values were >0.6 for most tasks. High correlations were found between the two raters on total scores and most subscales (r = 0.599-1.000, p < 0.001), and the differences between them were small. LCS subscales and total score intraclass correlations (ICC) were high. Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach's α > 0.7) for most LCS subscales and total scores. Moderate to strong correlations were found between LCS and CRS-R scores (r = 0.554-0.949, p < 0.05), and the difference in responsiveness between LCS and CRS-R was non-significant.

Conclusions: The findings indicate that the LCS is reliable and valid, making it a valuable clinical and research assessment tool for patients with DOC.

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
Neurology International
Neurology International CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
69
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信