我们对痴呆症患者正念自我报告测量的有效性和可靠性了解多少?批判性叙事评论》。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q3 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Clinical Gerontologist Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1080/07317115.2024.2427268
Philipp M Keune, Regina Meister, Jana Keune, Romy Springer, Patrick Oschmann, Sascha Hansen, Iva Holmerová, Stefanie Auer
{"title":"我们对痴呆症患者正念自我报告测量的有效性和可靠性了解多少?批判性叙事评论》。","authors":"Philipp M Keune, Regina Meister, Jana Keune, Romy Springer, Patrick Oschmann, Sascha Hansen, Iva Holmerová, Stefanie Auer","doi":"10.1080/07317115.2024.2427268","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for persons with dementia (PwD) have yielded mixed results, possibly attributable to the fact that little is known about the validity and reliability of trait mindfulness self-report measures in PwD. This narrative review sought to identify studies involving self-reported trait mindfulness and other clinical measures that may hold information on the convergent validity and reliability of these measures in PwD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scientific databases were searched for studies involving PwD and mindfulness assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong><i>N</i> = 426 studies from PubMed and <i>N</i> = 156 from PsychInfo databases were reviewed. Four cross-sectional studies were identified that allowed inferences about the validity of mindfulness measures. A qualitative review indicated that convergent validity with other measures varied with sample heterogeneity and cognitive impairment. Merely one MBI included self-reported trait mindfulness, however without reporting sample-specific validity or reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite efforts to implement MBIs in PwD, information on basic methodological psychometric issues is minimal. Future studies ought to address the validity and reliability of self-reported mindfulness in detail across different stages of dementia.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>Results of MBIs need to be considered cautiously. Basic information about psychometric properties of mindfulness self-report measures is required and these measures need to be included systematically in MBIs.</p>","PeriodicalId":10376,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Gerontologist","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Do We Know About the Validity and Reliability of Mindfulness Self-Report Measures in Persons with Dementia? A Critical Narrative Review.\",\"authors\":\"Philipp M Keune, Regina Meister, Jana Keune, Romy Springer, Patrick Oschmann, Sascha Hansen, Iva Holmerová, Stefanie Auer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07317115.2024.2427268\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for persons with dementia (PwD) have yielded mixed results, possibly attributable to the fact that little is known about the validity and reliability of trait mindfulness self-report measures in PwD. This narrative review sought to identify studies involving self-reported trait mindfulness and other clinical measures that may hold information on the convergent validity and reliability of these measures in PwD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scientific databases were searched for studies involving PwD and mindfulness assessments.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong><i>N</i> = 426 studies from PubMed and <i>N</i> = 156 from PsychInfo databases were reviewed. Four cross-sectional studies were identified that allowed inferences about the validity of mindfulness measures. A qualitative review indicated that convergent validity with other measures varied with sample heterogeneity and cognitive impairment. Merely one MBI included self-reported trait mindfulness, however without reporting sample-specific validity or reliability.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite efforts to implement MBIs in PwD, information on basic methodological psychometric issues is minimal. Future studies ought to address the validity and reliability of self-reported mindfulness in detail across different stages of dementia.</p><p><strong>Clinical implications: </strong>Results of MBIs need to be considered cautiously. Basic information about psychometric properties of mindfulness self-report measures is required and these measures need to be included systematically in MBIs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Gerontologist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-15\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Gerontologist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2024.2427268\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Gerontologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07317115.2024.2427268","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:针对痴呆症患者(PwD)的正念干预(MBIs)结果不一,这可能是因为人们对痴呆症患者特质正念自我报告测量的有效性和可靠性知之甚少。本叙事性综述旨在确定涉及自我报告的正念特质和其他临床测量方法的研究,这些研究可能包含有关这些测量方法在痴呆症患者中的收敛有效性和可靠性的信息:方法:在科学数据库中搜索涉及残疾人和正念评估的研究:审查了 PubMed 上的 N = 426 项研究和 PsychInfo 数据库中的 N = 156 项研究。共发现了四项横断面研究,可以推断正念测量的有效性。一项定性综述表明,正念测量与其他测量方法的收敛效度因样本异质性和认知障碍而异。只有一项MBI包括自我报告的正念特质,但没有报告特定样本的有效性或可靠性:结论:尽管人们努力在残疾人中实施 MBI,但有关基本方法心理测量问题的信息却少之又少。未来的研究应详细探讨痴呆症不同阶段自我报告正念的有效性和可靠性:临床意义:需要谨慎考虑正念的结果。需要提供有关正念自我报告测量的心理测量特性的基本信息,并将这些测量系统地纳入MBI中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
What Do We Know About the Validity and Reliability of Mindfulness Self-Report Measures in Persons with Dementia? A Critical Narrative Review.

Objectives: Mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for persons with dementia (PwD) have yielded mixed results, possibly attributable to the fact that little is known about the validity and reliability of trait mindfulness self-report measures in PwD. This narrative review sought to identify studies involving self-reported trait mindfulness and other clinical measures that may hold information on the convergent validity and reliability of these measures in PwD.

Methods: Scientific databases were searched for studies involving PwD and mindfulness assessments.

Results: N = 426 studies from PubMed and N = 156 from PsychInfo databases were reviewed. Four cross-sectional studies were identified that allowed inferences about the validity of mindfulness measures. A qualitative review indicated that convergent validity with other measures varied with sample heterogeneity and cognitive impairment. Merely one MBI included self-reported trait mindfulness, however without reporting sample-specific validity or reliability.

Conclusions: Despite efforts to implement MBIs in PwD, information on basic methodological psychometric issues is minimal. Future studies ought to address the validity and reliability of self-reported mindfulness in detail across different stages of dementia.

Clinical implications: Results of MBIs need to be considered cautiously. Basic information about psychometric properties of mindfulness self-report measures is required and these measures need to be included systematically in MBIs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Gerontologist
Clinical Gerontologist GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-PSYCHIATRY
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
90
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Gerontologist presents original research, reviews, and clinical comments relevant to the needs of behavioral health professionals and all practitioners who work with older adults. Published in cooperation with Psychologists in Long Term Care, the journal is designed for psychologists, physicians, nurses, social workers, counselors (family, pastoral, and vocational), and other health professionals who address behavioral health concerns found in later life, including: -adjustments to changing roles- issues related to diversity and aging- family caregiving- spirituality- cognitive and psychosocial assessment- depression, anxiety, and PTSD- Alzheimer’s disease and other neurocognitive disorders- long term care- behavioral medicine in aging- rehabilitation and education for older adults. Each issue provides insightful articles on current topics. Submissions are peer reviewed by content experts and selected for both scholarship and relevance to the practitioner to ensure that the articles are among the best in the field. Authors report original research and conceptual reviews. A unique column in Clinical Gerontologist is “Clinical Comments." This section features brief observations and specific suggestions from practitioners which avoid elaborate research designs or long reference lists. This section is a unique opportunity for you to learn about the valuable clinical work of your peers in a short, concise format.
期刊最新文献
Music Matters, but so Does the Outcome Measure: A Randomized Controlled Trial for an Individualized Music Intervention for People Living with Dementia. Cannabidiol Use Among Older Adults: Associations with Cannabis Use, Physical and Mental Health, and Other Substance Use. What Do We Know About the Validity and Reliability of Mindfulness Self-Report Measures in Persons with Dementia? A Critical Narrative Review. Temporal Sequence of Cognitive Function and ADLs and Mediation Effect of Apathy in Parkinson's Disease: Cross-Lagged Analyses. Perceiving Greater Ageism in Barriers to Mental Healthcare Relates to Poorer Mental Health for Older Adults.
×
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