开发和评估执行功能障碍-智障适应行为评估(BADS-ID)的有效性

IF 1.2 Q4 PSYCHIATRY
Z. Webb, Karen Dodd, A. Livesey, S. Sunak, C. Marshall, Lee Harrison, H. Liddiard
{"title":"开发和评估执行功能障碍-智障适应行为评估(BADS-ID)的有效性","authors":"Z. Webb, Karen Dodd, A. Livesey, S. Sunak, C. Marshall, Lee Harrison, H. Liddiard","doi":"10.1108/amhid-12-2019-0043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nAssessment of executive functioning is an important element of a comprehensive assessment of intellectual abilities. Few assessments available are accessible for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) and none have population-specific norms. This paper aims to describe the adaptation of the behavioural assessment of dysexecutive syndrome (BADS).\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nAdaptations were made to the BADS tests to create the BADS – intellectual disabilities (BADS-ID). Data from three doctoral dissertations were combined to explore the utility, reliability, validity and component structure of the BADS-ID. Properties of the BADS-ID were compared with the Cambridge Executive Functioning Assessment (CEFA).\n\n\nFindings\nThe BADS-ID is accessible to IQ range 50–70 and has a two-component structure. It has good inter-rater reliability, but poor internal consistency. It has a good face and content validity but evidence for concurrent and discriminative validity is weak. All properties are comparable to or better than the CEFA.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nFurther research is needed to improve reliability and validity. The development of an accessible test battery with known reliability and validity for individuals with ID should facilitate research into executive functioning in this population. There is the potential to develop population-specific norms from the data.\n\n\nPractical implications\nAn accessible test battery for individuals with ID is helpful in clinical situations.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore the adaptation of the BADS for use with individuals with ID.\n","PeriodicalId":44693,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/amhid-12-2019-0043","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Developing and evaluating the validity of the behavioural assessment of dysexecutive functioning – intellectual disabilities adaptation (BADS-ID)\",\"authors\":\"Z. Webb, Karen Dodd, A. Livesey, S. Sunak, C. Marshall, Lee Harrison, H. Liddiard\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/amhid-12-2019-0043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nPurpose\\nAssessment of executive functioning is an important element of a comprehensive assessment of intellectual abilities. Few assessments available are accessible for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) and none have population-specific norms. This paper aims to describe the adaptation of the behavioural assessment of dysexecutive syndrome (BADS).\\n\\n\\nDesign/methodology/approach\\nAdaptations were made to the BADS tests to create the BADS – intellectual disabilities (BADS-ID). Data from three doctoral dissertations were combined to explore the utility, reliability, validity and component structure of the BADS-ID. Properties of the BADS-ID were compared with the Cambridge Executive Functioning Assessment (CEFA).\\n\\n\\nFindings\\nThe BADS-ID is accessible to IQ range 50–70 and has a two-component structure. It has good inter-rater reliability, but poor internal consistency. It has a good face and content validity but evidence for concurrent and discriminative validity is weak. All properties are comparable to or better than the CEFA.\\n\\n\\nResearch limitations/implications\\nFurther research is needed to improve reliability and validity. The development of an accessible test battery with known reliability and validity for individuals with ID should facilitate research into executive functioning in this population. There is the potential to develop population-specific norms from the data.\\n\\n\\nPractical implications\\nAn accessible test battery for individuals with ID is helpful in clinical situations.\\n\\n\\nOriginality/value\\nTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore the adaptation of the BADS for use with individuals with ID.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":44693,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/amhid-12-2019-0043\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/amhid-12-2019-0043\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Mental Health and Intellectual Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/amhid-12-2019-0043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的执行功能评估是智力综合评估的一个重要组成部分。几乎没有可供智障人士使用的评估,也没有一项具有特定人群的规范。本文旨在描述执行障碍综合征(BADS)行为评估的适应性。设计/方法/方法对BADS测试进行适应性调整,以创建BADS-智力残疾(BADS-ID)。结合三篇博士学位论文的数据,探讨了BADS-ID的效用、信度、有效性和成分结构。将BADS-ID的性质与剑桥行政功能评估(CEFA)进行了比较。发现BADS-ID具有双组分结构,智商在50-70之间。它具有良好的评分者间可靠性,但内部一致性较差。它具有良好的面子和内容有效性,但同时有效性和判别有效性的证据不足。所有属性都与CEFA相当或更好。研究局限性/含义需要进一步研究以提高可靠性和有效性。为ID患者开发一种具有已知可靠性和有效性的可访问测试组,应有助于对该人群执行功能的研究。有可能根据数据制定特定人群的规范。实际意义为ID患者提供一个可访问的测试组在临床情况下很有帮助。独创性/价值据作者所知,这是第一项探索BADS适应ID患者使用的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Developing and evaluating the validity of the behavioural assessment of dysexecutive functioning – intellectual disabilities adaptation (BADS-ID)
Purpose Assessment of executive functioning is an important element of a comprehensive assessment of intellectual abilities. Few assessments available are accessible for individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID) and none have population-specific norms. This paper aims to describe the adaptation of the behavioural assessment of dysexecutive syndrome (BADS). Design/methodology/approach Adaptations were made to the BADS tests to create the BADS – intellectual disabilities (BADS-ID). Data from three doctoral dissertations were combined to explore the utility, reliability, validity and component structure of the BADS-ID. Properties of the BADS-ID were compared with the Cambridge Executive Functioning Assessment (CEFA). Findings The BADS-ID is accessible to IQ range 50–70 and has a two-component structure. It has good inter-rater reliability, but poor internal consistency. It has a good face and content validity but evidence for concurrent and discriminative validity is weak. All properties are comparable to or better than the CEFA. Research limitations/implications Further research is needed to improve reliability and validity. The development of an accessible test battery with known reliability and validity for individuals with ID should facilitate research into executive functioning in this population. There is the potential to develop population-specific norms from the data. Practical implications An accessible test battery for individuals with ID is helpful in clinical situations. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to explore the adaptation of the BADS for use with individuals with ID.
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
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
18.20%
发文量
22
×
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