[Psychometric analysis of the prefrontal symptom inventory abbreviated: evidence of its validity and reliability in the general Venezuelan population].

O Terán-Mendoza, V Cancino, N Mendoza, L Mendoza-Caripá, E J Pedrero-Pérez
{"title":"[Psychometric analysis of the prefrontal symptom inventory abbreviated: evidence of its validity and reliability in the general Venezuelan population].","authors":"O Terán-Mendoza, V Cancino, N Mendoza, L Mendoza-Caripá, E J Pedrero-Pérez","doi":"10.33588/rn.7411.2022068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Few tools exist to objectively measure dysfunctions of prefrontal origin self-reported by the general population. The Prefrontal Symptom Inventory (PSI) is a test with excellent psychometric properties that allows such assessment and so far, no robust analysis of its abbreviated version in Spanish for Latin America has been performed.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To analyze the psychometric properties of the abbreviated PSI in terms of reliability and validity in the general population in the Venezuelan context.</p><p><strong>Subjects and methods: </strong>300 subjects from the general population participated. The factor structure of the abbreviated ISP was determined through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); construct validity was assessed by contrasting groups with no risk of MCI and the convergence of scores with the domains that make up the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Likewise, internal consistency was estimated through McDonald's ? and Cronbach's a.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five factorial models were contrasted and a version of the PSI composed of 18 items was obtained, which presented excellent indicators of goodness of fit (?2 (132) = 200.057, p < 0.001, CFI=0.955, TLI=0.948, SRMR=0.042, RMSEA=0.041) and internal consistency (? = 0.90; a = 0.89). Likewise, statistically significant differences between groups and inverse correlations were evidenced with the sections evaluated in the MoCA except for abstraction.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The PSI-18 is a valid and reliable measure to be used in the studied population. Consistently, previous studies show its versatility to be used in research and health contexts.</p>","PeriodicalId":89222,"journal":{"name":"Procedia, social and behavioral sciences","volume":"16 1","pages":"353-360"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11502168/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Procedia, social and behavioral sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33588/rn.7411.2022068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Few tools exist to objectively measure dysfunctions of prefrontal origin self-reported by the general population. The Prefrontal Symptom Inventory (PSI) is a test with excellent psychometric properties that allows such assessment and so far, no robust analysis of its abbreviated version in Spanish for Latin America has been performed.

Aims: To analyze the psychometric properties of the abbreviated PSI in terms of reliability and validity in the general population in the Venezuelan context.

Subjects and methods: 300 subjects from the general population participated. The factor structure of the abbreviated ISP was determined through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); construct validity was assessed by contrasting groups with no risk of MCI and the convergence of scores with the domains that make up the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Likewise, internal consistency was estimated through McDonald's ? and Cronbach's a.

Results: Five factorial models were contrasted and a version of the PSI composed of 18 items was obtained, which presented excellent indicators of goodness of fit (?2 (132) = 200.057, p < 0.001, CFI=0.955, TLI=0.948, SRMR=0.042, RMSEA=0.041) and internal consistency (? = 0.90; a = 0.89). Likewise, statistically significant differences between groups and inverse correlations were evidenced with the sections evaluated in the MoCA except for abstraction.

Conclusion: The PSI-18 is a valid and reliable measure to be used in the studied population. Consistently, previous studies show its versatility to be used in research and health contexts.

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
[前额叶症状清单缩写的心理计量分析:在委内瑞拉普通人群中的有效性和可靠性证据]。
前言很少有工具可以客观地测量普通人群自我报告的前额叶功能障碍。前额叶症状量表(PSI)是一种心理测量特性极佳的测试工具,可以进行此类评估,但迄今为止,尚未对其拉丁美洲西班牙语简写版进行过可靠的分析。目的:分析委内瑞拉普通人群中PSI简写版在信度和效度方面的心理测量特性。受试者和方法:300名普通人群受试者参加。通过确认性因素分析(CFA)确定了简略ISP的因素结构;通过对比无MCI风险的群体以及分数与蒙特利尔认知评估(MoCA)各领域的趋同性,评估了建构效度。同样,内部一致性也是通过 McDonald's s 和 Cronbach's a 进行估算的:对五个因子模型进行了对比,得出了由 18 个项目组成的 PSI 版本,其拟合度指标(?2 (132) = 200.057, p < 0.001, CFI=0.955, TLI=0.948, SRMR=0.042, RMSEA=0.041)和内部一致性指标(?=0.90;a=0.89)均非常出色。同样,除抽象能力外,各组间存在统计学差异,且与MoCA的评估部分呈反相关:结论:PSI-18 是一种有效且可靠的测量方法,可用于研究人群。结论:PSI-18 是一种有效且可靠的测量方法,可用于研究人群。以往的研究一致表明,它可用于研究和健康领域。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Parent-child age gaps in patients with anorexia and bulimia nervosa and their associations with family dysfunction. High-Riding Inominate Artery: Challenge During Tracheostomy. Patient and Clinician Experience of Using Telehealth During the 'COVID-19 Pandemic in a Public Mental Health Service in Australia. Optimizing Survival Benefit by Surgical Resection by the Seven-Eleven Criteria in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage A/B Hepatocellular Carcinoma beyond the Milan Criteria. Direct Observation of Compartment-Specific Localization and Dynamics of Voltage-Gated Sodium Channels.
×
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