安德瑞森思想、语言和交流障碍量表的信度。

G C Davis, D M Simpson, D Foster, Z Arison, M Post
{"title":"安德瑞森思想、语言和交流障碍量表的信度。","authors":"G C Davis,&nbsp;D M Simpson,&nbsp;D Foster,&nbsp;Z Arison,&nbsp;M Post","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study of disordered thinking has been hampered by a lack of clinical instruments aimed at the measurement of thought disorder. Andreasen has proposed a rating scale for thought disorder (TLC) and reported on its reliability and preliminary aspects of its validity. In our study, a psychiatrist and physician assistant rated 98 psychiatric inpatients using the TLC and BPRS. Interrater reliability ranged from 0.35 to 0.80 (weighted kappa) on 18 aspects of thought disorder and one global item. The order of reliability for the 18 individual items was strongly correlated between the Andreasen sample and our own (r = 0.77). While the BPRS thought disorder scale was significantly related to the global rating of thought disorder on the TLC (r = 0.71), only half of the variance in thought disorder measured by the TLC was accounted for by the BPRS factor. Thus, this study supports Andreasen's contention that the TLC is a reliable instrument and suggests that the instrument may provide additional information about thinking disorders.</p>","PeriodicalId":77808,"journal":{"name":"The Hillside journal of clinical psychiatry","volume":"8 1","pages":"25-33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1986-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability of Andreasen's thought, language and communications disorder scale.\",\"authors\":\"G C Davis,&nbsp;D M Simpson,&nbsp;D Foster,&nbsp;Z Arison,&nbsp;M Post\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The study of disordered thinking has been hampered by a lack of clinical instruments aimed at the measurement of thought disorder. Andreasen has proposed a rating scale for thought disorder (TLC) and reported on its reliability and preliminary aspects of its validity. In our study, a psychiatrist and physician assistant rated 98 psychiatric inpatients using the TLC and BPRS. Interrater reliability ranged from 0.35 to 0.80 (weighted kappa) on 18 aspects of thought disorder and one global item. The order of reliability for the 18 individual items was strongly correlated between the Andreasen sample and our own (r = 0.77). While the BPRS thought disorder scale was significantly related to the global rating of thought disorder on the TLC (r = 0.71), only half of the variance in thought disorder measured by the TLC was accounted for by the BPRS factor. Thus, this study supports Andreasen's contention that the TLC is a reliable instrument and suggests that the instrument may provide additional information about thinking disorders.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77808,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Hillside journal of clinical psychiatry\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"25-33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1986-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Hillside journal of clinical psychiatry\",\"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":"The Hillside journal of clinical psychiatry","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

由于缺乏用于测量思维障碍的临床仪器,对思维障碍的研究受到了阻碍。Andreasen提出了一种思维障碍评定量表(TLC),并报道了其信度和效度的初步方面。在我们的研究中,一名精神科医生和一名医师助理对98名精神科住院患者进行了TLC和BPRS评分。在思维障碍的18个方面和一个整体项目上,被测者的信度范围为0.35 ~ 0.80(加权kappa)。在Andreasen样本和我们自己的样本之间,18个单项的信度顺序是强相关的(r = 0.77)。虽然BPRS思维障碍量表与思维障碍在TLC上的整体评分显著相关(r = 0.71),但在TLC测量的思维障碍方差中,只有一半是由BPRS因素造成的。因此,这项研究支持了Andreasen的观点,即TLC是一种可靠的工具,并表明该工具可能提供有关思维障碍的额外信息。
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 Andreasen's thought, language and communications disorder scale.

The study of disordered thinking has been hampered by a lack of clinical instruments aimed at the measurement of thought disorder. Andreasen has proposed a rating scale for thought disorder (TLC) and reported on its reliability and preliminary aspects of its validity. In our study, a psychiatrist and physician assistant rated 98 psychiatric inpatients using the TLC and BPRS. Interrater reliability ranged from 0.35 to 0.80 (weighted kappa) on 18 aspects of thought disorder and one global item. The order of reliability for the 18 individual items was strongly correlated between the Andreasen sample and our own (r = 0.77). While the BPRS thought disorder scale was significantly related to the global rating of thought disorder on the TLC (r = 0.71), only half of the variance in thought disorder measured by the TLC was accounted for by the BPRS factor. Thus, this study supports Andreasen's contention that the TLC is a reliable instrument and suggests that the instrument may provide additional information about thinking disorders.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信