西班牙DARS量表的纸笔格式和数字格式的比较研究。

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q1 Medicine Acta Neuropsychiatrica Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2021-12-23 DOI:10.1017/neu.2021.45
Elsa Arrua-Duarte, Marta Migoya-Borja, Igor Barahona, Lena C Quilty, Sakina J Rizvi, Sidney H Kennedy, Enrique Baca-García, Maria L Barrigon
{"title":"西班牙DARS量表的纸笔格式和数字格式的比较研究。","authors":"Elsa Arrua-Duarte,&nbsp;Marta Migoya-Borja,&nbsp;Igor Barahona,&nbsp;Lena C Quilty,&nbsp;Sakina J Rizvi,&nbsp;Sidney H Kennedy,&nbsp;Enrique Baca-García,&nbsp;Maria L Barrigon","doi":"10.1017/neu.2021.45","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale (DARS) is a novel questionnaire to assess anhedonia of recent validation. In this work, we aim to study the equivalence between the traditional paper-and-pencil and the digital format of DARS. Sixty-nine patients filled the DARS in a paper-based and digital versions. We assessed differences between formats (Wilcoxon test), validity of the scales [Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)], and reliability (Cronbach's alpha and Guttman's coefficient). We calculated the comparative fit index and the root mean squared error (RMSE) associated with the proposed one-factor structure. Total scores were higher for paper-based format. Significant differences between both formats were found for three items. The weighted Kappa coefficient was approximately 0.40 for most of the items. Internal consistency was greater than 0.94, and the ICC for the digital version was 0.95 and 0.94 for the paper-and-pencil version (<i>F</i> = 16.7, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Comparative Adjustment Index was 0.97 for the digital DARS and 0.97 for the paper-and-pencil DARS, and RMSE was 0.11 for the digital DARS and 0.10 for the paper-and-pencil DARS. We concluded that the digital DARS is consistent in many respects with the paper-and-pencil questionnaire, but equivalence with this format cannot be assumed without caution.</p>","PeriodicalId":7066,"journal":{"name":"Acta Neuropsychiatrica","volume":"34 5","pages":"253-259"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative study of the pencil-and-paper and digital formats of the Spanish DARS scale.\",\"authors\":\"Elsa Arrua-Duarte,&nbsp;Marta Migoya-Borja,&nbsp;Igor Barahona,&nbsp;Lena C Quilty,&nbsp;Sakina J Rizvi,&nbsp;Sidney H Kennedy,&nbsp;Enrique Baca-García,&nbsp;Maria L Barrigon\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/neu.2021.45\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale (DARS) is a novel questionnaire to assess anhedonia of recent validation. In this work, we aim to study the equivalence between the traditional paper-and-pencil and the digital format of DARS. Sixty-nine patients filled the DARS in a paper-based and digital versions. We assessed differences between formats (Wilcoxon test), validity of the scales [Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)], and reliability (Cronbach's alpha and Guttman's coefficient). We calculated the comparative fit index and the root mean squared error (RMSE) associated with the proposed one-factor structure. Total scores were higher for paper-based format. Significant differences between both formats were found for three items. The weighted Kappa coefficient was approximately 0.40 for most of the items. Internal consistency was greater than 0.94, and the ICC for the digital version was 0.95 and 0.94 for the paper-and-pencil version (<i>F</i> = 16.7, <i>p</i> < 0.001). Comparative Adjustment Index was 0.97 for the digital DARS and 0.97 for the paper-and-pencil DARS, and RMSE was 0.11 for the digital DARS and 0.10 for the paper-and-pencil DARS. We concluded that the digital DARS is consistent in many respects with the paper-and-pencil questionnaire, but equivalence with this format cannot be assumed without caution.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Neuropsychiatrica\",\"volume\":\"34 5\",\"pages\":\"253-259\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Neuropsychiatrica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/neu.2021.45\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/12/23 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Neuropsychiatrica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/neu.2021.45","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

维度快感缺乏症评定量表(DARS)是一种评估快感缺乏症的新型问卷,最近得到了验证。在这项工作中,我们的目标是研究传统的纸笔和数字格式的dar之间的等效性。69名患者分别填写了纸质和数字版本的DARS。我们评估了格式(Wilcoxon检验)、量表效度(Kappa和类内相关系数(ICCs))和信度(Cronbach’s alpha和Guttman’s系数)之间的差异。我们计算了与所提出的单因素结构相关的比较拟合指数和均方根误差(RMSE)。纸质格式的总分更高。两种格式在三个项目上存在显著差异。大多数项目的加权Kappa系数约为0.40。内部一致性大于0.94,数字版本的ICC为0.95,纸笔版本的ICC为0.94 (F = 16.7, p < 0.001)。数字DARS的比较调整指数为0.97,纸笔DARS的比较调整指数为0.97,数字DARS的RMSE为0.11,纸笔DARS的RMSE为0.10。我们的结论是,数字DARS与纸笔问卷在许多方面是一致的,但不能不谨慎地假设与这种格式相等。
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
Comparative study of the pencil-and-paper and digital formats of the Spanish DARS scale.

The Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale (DARS) is a novel questionnaire to assess anhedonia of recent validation. In this work, we aim to study the equivalence between the traditional paper-and-pencil and the digital format of DARS. Sixty-nine patients filled the DARS in a paper-based and digital versions. We assessed differences between formats (Wilcoxon test), validity of the scales [Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs)], and reliability (Cronbach's alpha and Guttman's coefficient). We calculated the comparative fit index and the root mean squared error (RMSE) associated with the proposed one-factor structure. Total scores were higher for paper-based format. Significant differences between both formats were found for three items. The weighted Kappa coefficient was approximately 0.40 for most of the items. Internal consistency was greater than 0.94, and the ICC for the digital version was 0.95 and 0.94 for the paper-and-pencil version (F = 16.7, p < 0.001). Comparative Adjustment Index was 0.97 for the digital DARS and 0.97 for the paper-and-pencil DARS, and RMSE was 0.11 for the digital DARS and 0.10 for the paper-and-pencil DARS. We concluded that the digital DARS is consistent in many respects with the paper-and-pencil questionnaire, but equivalence with this format cannot be assumed without caution.

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
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
Acta Neuropsychiatrica 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
5.30%
发文量
30
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Neuropsychiatrica is an international journal focussing on translational neuropsychiatry. It publishes high-quality original research papers and reviews. The Journal''s scope specifically highlights the pathway from discovery to clinical applications, healthcare and global health that can be viewed broadly as the spectrum of work that marks the pathway from discovery to global health.
期刊最新文献
Cannabidiol modulates contextual fear memory consolidation in animals with experimentally induced type-1 diabetes mellitus. Role of T and B lymphocyte cannabinoid type 1 and 2 receptors in major depression and suicidal behaviours. Cannabidiol negatively modulates adenosine A2A receptor functioning in living cells. The effects of cannabidiol on behavioural and oxidative stress parameters induced by prolonged haloperidol administration. Psychiatric sequelae after SARS-Cov-2 infection: trajectory, predictors and associations in a longitudinal Australian cohort.
×
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