Reliability, validity, and diagnostic accuracy of the apathy evaluation scale in chronic stroke survivors.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY BMC Psychiatry Pub Date : 2025-03-05 DOI:10.1186/s12888-025-06626-5
Akram Jamali, Tourandokht Baluchnejadmojarad, Seyede Zohreh Jazaeri, Shiva Abedi, Hajar Mehdizadeh, Parvaneh Taghavi Azar Sharabiani, Ghorban Taghizadeh
{"title":"Reliability, validity, and diagnostic accuracy of the apathy evaluation scale in chronic stroke survivors.","authors":"Akram Jamali, Tourandokht Baluchnejadmojarad, Seyede Zohreh Jazaeri, Shiva Abedi, Hajar Mehdizadeh, Parvaneh Taghavi Azar Sharabiani, Ghorban Taghizadeh","doi":"10.1186/s12888-025-06626-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>We aimed to determine the psychometric properties of the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) in chronic stroke survivors.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this study, 112 non-cognitive impairment stroke survivors participated. Acceptability, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability of the three Persian versions of AES (clinician, informant, and self-rated) were evaluated. The correlation of three AES versions with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and Barthel Index (BI) was evaluated. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the three AES versions, stroke survivors were classified as apathetic (n = 43) and non-apathetic (n = 69) groups using the 'diagnostic criteria of apathy'.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The floor and ceiling effect, skewness, and kurtosis were within acceptable range for three AES versions. Internal consistency (α = 0.88-0.91) and test-retest and inter-rater reliability (ICC<sub>2,1</sub> >0.90) were acceptable for all AES versions. Standard Error of Measurement and Minimal Detectable Change values for test-retest and/or inter-rater reliability ranged 1.6-2.5 and 4.42-6.93 for three versions of AES, respectively. Significant moderate to high correlation (r or ƿ = -0.34-0.69) was found between three AES versions and HADS-D, HADS-A, BI, and mRS. The cut-off point > 34 (sensitivity = 87.5%, specificity = 72.22%, and AUC = 0.80) was derived for discriminating apathetic from non-apathetic stroke survivors based on the AES- self-rated total score.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All three AES versions are reliable and valid screening tools to evaluate and characterize apathy in stroke survivors. The AES-self-rated had good discriminative validity for discriminating apathetic from non-apathetic subjects in non-cognitive impairment stroke survivors.</p>","PeriodicalId":9029,"journal":{"name":"BMC Psychiatry","volume":"25 1","pages":"201"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11881398/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-025-06626-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: We aimed to determine the psychometric properties of the Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) in chronic stroke survivors.

Methods: In this study, 112 non-cognitive impairment stroke survivors participated. Acceptability, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability of the three Persian versions of AES (clinician, informant, and self-rated) were evaluated. The correlation of three AES versions with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and Barthel Index (BI) was evaluated. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of the three AES versions, stroke survivors were classified as apathetic (n = 43) and non-apathetic (n = 69) groups using the 'diagnostic criteria of apathy'.

Results: The floor and ceiling effect, skewness, and kurtosis were within acceptable range for three AES versions. Internal consistency (α = 0.88-0.91) and test-retest and inter-rater reliability (ICC2,1 >0.90) were acceptable for all AES versions. Standard Error of Measurement and Minimal Detectable Change values for test-retest and/or inter-rater reliability ranged 1.6-2.5 and 4.42-6.93 for three versions of AES, respectively. Significant moderate to high correlation (r or ƿ = -0.34-0.69) was found between three AES versions and HADS-D, HADS-A, BI, and mRS. The cut-off point > 34 (sensitivity = 87.5%, specificity = 72.22%, and AUC = 0.80) was derived for discriminating apathetic from non-apathetic stroke survivors based on the AES- self-rated total score.

Conclusion: All three AES versions are reliable and valid screening tools to evaluate and characterize apathy in stroke survivors. The AES-self-rated had good discriminative validity for discriminating apathetic from non-apathetic subjects in non-cognitive impairment stroke survivors.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Psychiatry
BMC Psychiatry 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
4.50%
发文量
716
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Psychiatry is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of the prevention, diagnosis and management of psychiatric disorders, as well as related molecular genetics, pathophysiology, and epidemiology.
期刊最新文献
Psychometric properties of Japanese version of the Recovering Quality of Life (ReQoL). Global trends of depressive disorders among women of reproductive age from 1990 to 2021: a systematic analysis of burden, sociodemographic disparities, and health workforce correlations. Causal relationships between schizophrenia and psoriasis: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study. The impact of night shifts on the physical and mental health of psychiatric medical staff: the influence of occupational burnout. The role of metacognition and social cognition in childhood trauma effecting on prognosis: 1-year follow-up study in patients with first-episode schizophrenia.
×
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