异常行为量表的信度与指令变化的影响。

M G Aman, N N Singh, S H Turbott
{"title":"异常行为量表的信度与指令变化的影响。","authors":"M G Aman,&nbsp;N N Singh,&nbsp;S H Turbott","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Interrater and test-retest reliabilities of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist were compared on the basis of type of instructions to raters. Three nurses in each of three residential units twice rated 28 mentally retarded residents, using one type of rating system, and the ratings were repeated 4 weeks later. The frequency-based instructions resulted in both higher interrater and test-retest reliability coefficients than did the other instructional types. Frequency-based ratings were performed again in another residential unit, but the higher reliabilities were not replicated. Interrater and test-retest reliability correlations varied markedly both across subscales and raters but were comparable to levels derived with other symptom checklists. We concluded that rater characteristics (e.g., motivation) are more powerful variables than are scoring systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":75475,"journal":{"name":"American journal of mental deficiency","volume":"92 2","pages":"237-40"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist and the effect of variations in instructions.\",\"authors\":\"M G Aman,&nbsp;N N Singh,&nbsp;S H Turbott\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Interrater and test-retest reliabilities of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist were compared on the basis of type of instructions to raters. Three nurses in each of three residential units twice rated 28 mentally retarded residents, using one type of rating system, and the ratings were repeated 4 weeks later. The frequency-based instructions resulted in both higher interrater and test-retest reliability coefficients than did the other instructional types. Frequency-based ratings were performed again in another residential unit, but the higher reliabilities were not replicated. Interrater and test-retest reliability correlations varied markedly both across subscales and raters but were comparable to levels derived with other symptom checklists. We concluded that rater characteristics (e.g., motivation) are more powerful variables than are scoring systems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":75475,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of mental deficiency\",\"volume\":\"92 2\",\"pages\":\"237-40\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1987-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of mental deficiency\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of mental deficiency","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

根据不同的量表类型,比较异常行为量表的重测信度和重测信度。3个住院单位各有3名护士对28名智障患者进行两次评分,采用同一种评分系统,4周后再次进行评分。频率型教学的解释信度系数和重测信度系数均高于其他教学类型。基于频率的评级在另一个住宅单元中再次进行,但更高的可靠性没有被复制。量表间和重测信度相关性在子量表和评分者之间都有显著差异,但与其他症状检查表得出的水平相当。我们的结论是,评分特征(如动机)是比评分系统更强大的变量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reliability of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist and the effect of variations in instructions.

Interrater and test-retest reliabilities of the Aberrant Behavior Checklist were compared on the basis of type of instructions to raters. Three nurses in each of three residential units twice rated 28 mentally retarded residents, using one type of rating system, and the ratings were repeated 4 weeks later. The frequency-based instructions resulted in both higher interrater and test-retest reliability coefficients than did the other instructional types. Frequency-based ratings were performed again in another residential unit, but the higher reliabilities were not replicated. Interrater and test-retest reliability correlations varied markedly both across subscales and raters but were comparable to levels derived with other symptom checklists. We concluded that rater characteristics (e.g., motivation) are more powerful variables than are scoring systems.

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