Statistical Comparison Between Interview Questions and Rating Scales in Psychiatry.

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2023-07-01 DOI:10.5152/alphapsychiatry.2023.231155
Ömer Uysal, Reyhan İlhan, Muhammed Taha Esmeray, Mehmet Kemal Arıkan
{"title":"Statistical Comparison Between Interview Questions and Rating Scales in Psychiatry.","authors":"Ömer Uysal, Reyhan İlhan, Muhammed Taha Esmeray, Mehmet Kemal Arıkan","doi":"10.5152/alphapsychiatry.2023.231155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Psychiatric evaluations consist of both qualitative questions and quantitative assessments, sometimes questioning the same issue. The present study attempts to investigate the statistical equivalency of several close-ended questions of a procedural psychiatric examination and rating scales addressing a similar problem.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The current retrospective analysis included 314 patients who made their first visit to a private psychiatry clinic. Subjects underwent a routine psychiatric examination, including close-ended questions and related clinical scales. Questions included sleep and sexual problems, problems in marriage, parent relationship problems, and childhood abuse. The related psychiatric scales were Jenkins Sleep Scale, Arizona Sexual Experience Scale, Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, respectively. First, receiver operating curve analysis was conducted for each yes/no question and clinical scale. Then, area under curve sensitivity and specificity values were calculated. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was also performed to observe paired predictor variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among clinical questionnaires, the receiver operating curve model provided good area under curve values as prediction criteria for Dyadic Adjustment Scale (0.78; <i>P < .</i>001), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (0.74; <i>P < .</i>001), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-physical abuse (0.826; <i>P < .</i>001), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-sexual abuse (0.828; <i>P < .</i>001), Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (0.796; <i>P < .</i>001), and Jenkins Sleep Scale (0.920; <i>P < .</i>001). Multinomial logistic regression models also revealed good correct classification values for Dyadic Adjustment Scale-Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (61%), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Physical abuse-Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Sexual abuse (87.6%), and Arizona Sexual Experience Scale-Jenkins Sleep Scale (67%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When the symptoms are investigated in general terms, the present study reveals that an experienced clinician could rely on clinical questions as much as the quantitative scales in both clinical and research domains.</p>","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":" ","pages":"113-118"},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10645146/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5152/alphapsychiatry.2023.231155","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Psychiatric evaluations consist of both qualitative questions and quantitative assessments, sometimes questioning the same issue. The present study attempts to investigate the statistical equivalency of several close-ended questions of a procedural psychiatric examination and rating scales addressing a similar problem.

Methods: The current retrospective analysis included 314 patients who made their first visit to a private psychiatry clinic. Subjects underwent a routine psychiatric examination, including close-ended questions and related clinical scales. Questions included sleep and sexual problems, problems in marriage, parent relationship problems, and childhood abuse. The related psychiatric scales were Jenkins Sleep Scale, Arizona Sexual Experience Scale, Dyadic Adjustment Scale, and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire, respectively. First, receiver operating curve analysis was conducted for each yes/no question and clinical scale. Then, area under curve sensitivity and specificity values were calculated. Multinomial logistic regression analysis was also performed to observe paired predictor variables.

Results: Among clinical questionnaires, the receiver operating curve model provided good area under curve values as prediction criteria for Dyadic Adjustment Scale (0.78; P < .001), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (0.74; P < .001), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-physical abuse (0.826; P < .001), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-sexual abuse (0.828; P < .001), Arizona Sexual Experience Scale (0.796; P < .001), and Jenkins Sleep Scale (0.920; P < .001). Multinomial logistic regression models also revealed good correct classification values for Dyadic Adjustment Scale-Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (61%), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Physical abuse-Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-Sexual abuse (87.6%), and Arizona Sexual Experience Scale-Jenkins Sleep Scale (67%).

Conclusion: When the symptoms are investigated in general terms, the present study reveals that an experienced clinician could rely on clinical questions as much as the quantitative scales in both clinical and research domains.

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
精神病学访谈问题与评定量表的统计比较
背景:精神病学评估包括定性问题和定量评估,有时质疑同一问题。本研究试图探讨几个封闭式问题的统计等效性的程序精神病学检查和评定量表解决类似的问题。方法:目前的回顾性分析包括314例首次到私人精神病学诊所就诊的患者。受试者接受常规精神病学检查,包括封闭式问题和相关临床量表。问题包括睡眠和性问题、婚姻问题、父母关系问题和童年虐待。相关精神病学量表分别为Jenkins睡眠量表、Arizona性经验量表、二元调整量表和童年创伤问卷。首先,对每个是/否问题和临床量表进行受试者工作曲线分析。然后计算曲线下面积、灵敏度和特异度值。采用多项逻辑回归分析观察配对预测变量。结果:在临床问卷中,受试者工作曲线模型提供了较好的曲线下面积值作为二元调整量表的预测标准(0.78;P < 0.001),儿童创伤问卷(0.74;P < 0.001),儿童创伤问卷-身体虐待(0.826;P < 0.001),儿童创伤问卷-性虐待(0.828;P < 0.001),亚利桑那性经验量表(0.796;P < 0.001), Jenkins睡眠量表(0.920;P < 0.001)。多项logistic回归模型也显示二元调整量表-儿童创伤问卷(61%)、儿童创伤问卷-身体虐待-儿童创伤问卷-性虐待(87.6%)和亚利桑那性经验量表-詹金斯睡眠量表(67%)的分类正确率较高。结论:在对症状进行一般性调查时,本研究表明,在临床和研究领域,有经验的临床医生可以像依赖定量量表一样依赖临床问题。
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
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Diversity-Generating Skeletal Editing Transformations. Single-Electron-Transfer-Mediated Carbonylation Reactions. Strengthening Liquid Crystal Elastomer Muscles. Structural and Mechanistic Advances in the Chemistry of Methyl-Coenzyme M Reductase (MCR). Issue Publication Information
×
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