Reliability and validity of proxy reports of impulsivity and aggression: An evidence-based assessment approach to psychological autopsy methods.

Sergio Sanz-Gómez, Adrían Alacreu-Crespo, Julio Antonio Guija, Lucas Giner
{"title":"Reliability and validity of proxy reports of impulsivity and aggression: An evidence-based assessment approach to psychological autopsy methods.","authors":"Sergio Sanz-Gómez, Adrían Alacreu-Crespo, Julio Antonio Guija, Lucas Giner","doi":"10.1016/j.sjpmh.2023.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Psychological autopsy methods often include measures of impulsivity and aggression. The aim is to assess their reliability and validity in a Spanish sample.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Cross-sectional web-based survey was fulfilled by 184 proband and proxy pairs. Data was collected on sociodemographic characteristics, impulsivity through Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11), aggression through Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ), and history of suicide ideation. Proxies filled out BIS-11, BPAQ and suicide ideation with the responses they would expect from the probands. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between proband and proxies. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the predictive validity of proxy reports in predicting probands' suicide ideation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bivariate analysis showed differences in BPAQ (Median 68 vs. 62; p=0.001), but not in BIS-11 (p>.050). BIS-11 showed good concordance (ICC=0.754; CI 95% 0.671-0.816) and BPAQ acceptable (ICC=0.592; CI 95% 0.442-0.699). In the probands regression model BPAQ predicted suicide ideation (OR 1.038; CI 95% 1.016-1.061) but not BIS-11 (OR 0.991; CI 95% 0.958-1.025). In the proxy-report model BPAQ also predicted probands' suicide ideation (OR 1.036; CI 95% 1.014-1.058) but not BIS-11 (OR 0.973; CI 95% 0.942-1.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Used as proxy-reported assessment tools, BIS-11 showed better reliability than the BPAQ. However, both showed validity in Spanish population and could be included in psychological autopsy protocols.</p>","PeriodicalId":101179,"journal":{"name":"Spanish Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spanish Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sjpmh.2023.10.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Psychological autopsy methods often include measures of impulsivity and aggression. The aim is to assess their reliability and validity in a Spanish sample.

Methods: Cross-sectional web-based survey was fulfilled by 184 proband and proxy pairs. Data was collected on sociodemographic characteristics, impulsivity through Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11), aggression through Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ), and history of suicide ideation. Proxies filled out BIS-11, BPAQ and suicide ideation with the responses they would expect from the probands. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between proband and proxies. Logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the predictive validity of proxy reports in predicting probands' suicide ideation.

Results: Bivariate analysis showed differences in BPAQ (Median 68 vs. 62; p=0.001), but not in BIS-11 (p>.050). BIS-11 showed good concordance (ICC=0.754; CI 95% 0.671-0.816) and BPAQ acceptable (ICC=0.592; CI 95% 0.442-0.699). In the probands regression model BPAQ predicted suicide ideation (OR 1.038; CI 95% 1.016-1.061) but not BIS-11 (OR 0.991; CI 95% 0.958-1.025). In the proxy-report model BPAQ also predicted probands' suicide ideation (OR 1.036; CI 95% 1.014-1.058) but not BIS-11 (OR 0.973; CI 95% 0.942-1.004).

Conclusion: Used as proxy-reported assessment tools, BIS-11 showed better reliability than the BPAQ. However, both showed validity in Spanish population and could be included in psychological autopsy protocols.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
冲动性和攻击性代理报告的信度和效度:基于证据的心理解剖方法评估方法。
心理解剖方法通常包括冲动性和攻击性的测量。目的是评估其在西班牙样本中的信度和效度。方法:对184对先证者和代理进行网络横断面调查。收集社会人口学特征、Barratt冲动性量表(BIS-11)、Buss-Perry攻击问卷(BPAQ)和自杀意念史的数据。代理人填写BIS-11, BPAQ和自杀意念,并填写他们期望从先证者那里得到的回答。用先证者和代理之间的类内相关系数(ICC)评估信度。采用Logistic回归分析评估代理报告对自杀意念的预测效度。结果:双因素分析显示BPAQ差异(中位数68 vs. 62;p=0.001),但BIS-11没有(p = 0.050)。BIS-11显示良好的一致性(ICC = 0.754;CI 95% 0.671-0.816), BPAQ可接受(ICC = 0.592;Ci 95% 0.442-0.699)。先证回归模型中,BPAQ预测自杀意念(OR 1.038;CI 95% 1.016-1.061),但BIS-11没有(OR 0.991;Ci 95% 0.958-1.025)。在代理报告模型中,BPAQ也能预测先证者的自杀意念(OR 1.036 CI 95% 1.014-1.058),但BIS-11不能(OR 0.973;Ci 95% 0.942-1.004)。结论:BIS-11作为代理报告的评估工具,其可靠性优于BPAQ。然而,两者在西班牙人群中都显示出有效性,可以纳入心理尸检方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Climate change and mental health: The urgent warning of Brazil and Spain's 2024 catastrophic floods. Prediction of pharmacological response in OCD using machine learning techniques and clinical and neuropsychological variables. Luis Martín-Santos: A multidimensional psychiatrist. Meta-analysis of the effects of adjuvant drugs in co-occurring bipolar and substance use disorder Validation study of the Spanish brief version of TEMPS-A
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1