A Cross-Sectional Study of Concurrent Validity of the "Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale" with the "Sheehan Disability Scale" in Patients with Common Mental Disorders.

IF 1.9 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1177/02537176241281320
Manjunatha B Kondapura, Narayana Manjunatha, Anil Kumar M Nagaraj, Samir K Praharaj, Channaveerachari Naveen Kumar, Suresh Bada Math
{"title":"A Cross-Sectional Study of Concurrent Validity of the \"Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale\" with the \"Sheehan Disability Scale\" in Patients with Common Mental Disorders.","authors":"Manjunatha B Kondapura, Narayana Manjunatha, Anil Kumar M Nagaraj, Samir K Praharaj, Channaveerachari Naveen Kumar, Suresh Bada Math","doi":"10.1177/02537176241281320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Worldwide, common mental disorders (CMDs) (depression, anxiety, somatoform disorders) have a high prevalence in the community. About one-third of them experience disability. As the Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale (IDEAS) was originally designed by the Indian Psychiatric Society to assess disability in severe mental illnesses, it has not been widely used among CMDs. Our objective was to compare and establish a correlation between the level of disability obtained using IDEAS and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in CMDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional assessment of disability was performed among 220 consenting patients with CMDs. Disability scores of IDEAS and SDS were compared and correlated across the three varieties of CMDs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Age, gender, education, socioeconomic class, duration of illness, and duration of treatment exhibited significant differences among the three CMD groups. Both IDEAS and SDS show a milder level of disability; they did not differ significantly in their scores across CMDs. A strong correlation was seen between SDS and IDEAS across most domains.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The study revealed strong concurrent validity between the two scales, thus advocating that indigenously designed IDEAS can convincingly assess disability across the CMDs among the Indian population.</p>","PeriodicalId":13476,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"02537176241281320"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11572470/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02537176241281320","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Worldwide, common mental disorders (CMDs) (depression, anxiety, somatoform disorders) have a high prevalence in the community. About one-third of them experience disability. As the Indian Disability Evaluation and Assessment Scale (IDEAS) was originally designed by the Indian Psychiatric Society to assess disability in severe mental illnesses, it has not been widely used among CMDs. Our objective was to compare and establish a correlation between the level of disability obtained using IDEAS and the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in CMDs.

Methods: A cross-sectional assessment of disability was performed among 220 consenting patients with CMDs. Disability scores of IDEAS and SDS were compared and correlated across the three varieties of CMDs.

Results: Age, gender, education, socioeconomic class, duration of illness, and duration of treatment exhibited significant differences among the three CMD groups. Both IDEAS and SDS show a milder level of disability; they did not differ significantly in their scores across CMDs. A strong correlation was seen between SDS and IDEAS across most domains.

Conclusion: The study revealed strong concurrent validity between the two scales, thus advocating that indigenously designed IDEAS can convincingly assess disability across the CMDs among the Indian population.

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
印度残疾评估和评定量表 "与 "希恩残疾量表 "在常见精神障碍患者中的并发有效性横断面研究。
背景:在世界范围内,常见精神障碍(CMDs)(抑郁症、焦虑症、躯体形式障碍)在社区中的发病率很高。其中约有三分之一的人患有残疾。印度残疾评估和评定量表(IDEAS)最初是由印度精神病学会设计的,用于评估严重精神疾病患者的残疾情况,但并未在常见精神障碍患者中广泛使用。我们的目的是比较使用 IDEAS 和希恩残疾量表(SDS)得出的 CMD 患者残疾程度,并建立两者之间的相关性:我们对 220 名征得同意的 CMD 患者进行了残疾横断面评估。结果:年龄、性别、教育程度、社会经济阶层、病程和治疗时间在三个 CMD 组别之间存在显著差异。IDEAS 和 SDS 都显示出较轻的残疾程度;它们在不同 CMD 中的得分没有明显差异。在大多数领域中,SDS 和 IDEAS 之间存在很强的相关性:研究表明,这两种量表之间具有很强的并发效度,因此,印度本土设计的 IDEAS 可以令人信服地评估印度人群的 CMD 残疾情况。
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
4.80
自引率
7.10%
发文量
116
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine (ISSN 0253-7176) was started in 1978 as the official publication of the Indian Psychiatric Society South Zonal Branch. The journal allows free access (Open Access) and is published Bimonthly. The Journal includes but is not limited to review articles, original research, opinions, and letters. The Editor and publisher accept no legal responsibility for any opinions, omissions or errors by the authors, nor do they approve of any product advertised within the journal.
期刊最新文献
Buprenorphine Induced Nicolau Syndrome: A Case Report. Stress, Anxiety, and Depression in the First-year Students of Medical Education: A Prospective Cohort Study from a Women's Medical College in South India. Personality Dimension, Suicidal Intent, and Lethality: A Cross-sectional Study of Suicide Attempters with or Without Personality Disorders. Heart Rate Variability for Supplementing Withdrawal Assessment in Patients with Opioid Dependence: An Exploratory Study. The Many Faces of Guilt: A Review Mapping Unique and Overlapping Expressions in OCD and Depression.
×
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