Bush-Francis紧张症评定量表西班牙版的因素分析与验证

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY European Journal of Psychiatry Pub Date : 2023-10-01 DOI:10.1016/j.ejpsy.2023.07.004
Jorge Cuevas-Esteban , Francesc Serrat , Luisa Baladon , Neus Rabaneda-Lombarte , Crisanto Díez-Quevedo , Maria Iglesias-González
{"title":"Bush-Francis紧张症评定量表西班牙版的因素分析与验证","authors":"Jorge Cuevas-Esteban ,&nbsp;Francesc Serrat ,&nbsp;Luisa Baladon ,&nbsp;Neus Rabaneda-Lombarte ,&nbsp;Crisanto Díez-Quevedo ,&nbsp;Maria Iglesias-González","doi":"10.1016/j.ejpsy.2023.07.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument and Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Spain Version (BFCSI-SV and BFCRS-SV) using the ICD-11 and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria as well as other catatonia scales.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>One hundred patients were admitted to the inpatient psychiatry unit at Hospital Universitari Germans Trias I Pujol and two psychiatrists administered the BFCRS-SV to the first 10 patients to assess inter-rater reliability. The BFCRS-SV, BFCSI-SV, Modified Rogers Scale (MRS), </span>Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scales<span>, Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale, and Modified Simpson-Angus Scale were then employed.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The results showed that 27% of patients had catatonia using the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. Additionally, 51% of patients had 2 or more BFCRSI-SV items (Sensitivity: 100%; Specificity: 67.12%). The alpha coefficient values were 0.80 and 0.84 for the BFCSI-SV and BFCRS-SV, respectively, and the intraclass correlation coefficient values were 0.902 and 0.903. The area under the ROC curve was 0.971 and 0.96, and the instruments had a strong positive correlation with the DSM-5 score, ICD-11 score, and MRS. The study identified a three-factor model comprising the inhibition, excitement, and parakinetic dimensions.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Overall, the results suggest that the BFCSI-SV and BFCRS-SV are valid and reliable tools for the diagnosis of catatonia, especially when using a cut-off score of 5 or higher for the BFCSI-SV and 7 or higher for the BFCRS-SV.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":12045,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factor analysis and validation of the Bush Francis catatonia rating scale-Spain version\",\"authors\":\"Jorge Cuevas-Esteban ,&nbsp;Francesc Serrat ,&nbsp;Luisa Baladon ,&nbsp;Neus Rabaneda-Lombarte ,&nbsp;Crisanto Díez-Quevedo ,&nbsp;Maria Iglesias-González\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejpsy.2023.07.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and objectives</h3><p>The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument and Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Spain Version (BFCSI-SV and BFCRS-SV) using the ICD-11 and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria as well as other catatonia scales.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>One hundred patients were admitted to the inpatient psychiatry unit at Hospital Universitari Germans Trias I Pujol and two psychiatrists administered the BFCRS-SV to the first 10 patients to assess inter-rater reliability. The BFCRS-SV, BFCSI-SV, Modified Rogers Scale (MRS), </span>Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scales<span>, Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale, and Modified Simpson-Angus Scale were then employed.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The results showed that 27% of patients had catatonia using the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. Additionally, 51% of patients had 2 or more BFCRSI-SV items (Sensitivity: 100%; Specificity: 67.12%). The alpha coefficient values were 0.80 and 0.84 for the BFCSI-SV and BFCRS-SV, respectively, and the intraclass correlation coefficient values were 0.902 and 0.903. The area under the ROC curve was 0.971 and 0.96, and the instruments had a strong positive correlation with the DSM-5 score, ICD-11 score, and MRS. The study identified a three-factor model comprising the inhibition, excitement, and parakinetic dimensions.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Overall, the results suggest that the BFCSI-SV and BFCRS-SV are valid and reliable tools for the diagnosis of catatonia, especially when using a cut-off score of 5 or higher for the BFCSI-SV and 7 or higher for the BFCRS-SV.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12045,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0213616323000344\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0213616323000344","RegionNum":4,"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

摘要

背景和目的本研究的目的是使用ICD-11和DSM-5诊断标准以及其他紧张症量表来评估Bush-Francis紧张症筛查仪和Bush-FrancisCatatonia评定量表西班牙版(BFCSI-SV和BFCRS-SV)的可靠性和有效性。方法100名患者被送入德国Trias I Pujol大学医院的住院精神科,两名精神科医生对前10名患者进行BFCRS-SV,以评估评分者之间的可靠性。然后采用BFCRS-SV、BFCSI-SV、改良罗杰斯量表(MRS)、异常非自愿运动量表、Barnes Akathia评定量表和改良Simpson-Angus量表。结果采用DSM-5诊断标准,27%的患者有紧张症。此外,51%的患者有2个或2个以上的BFCRSI-SV项目(敏感性:100%;特异性:67.12%)。BFCSI-SV和BFCRS-SV的α系数值分别为0.80和0.84,组内相关系数值为0.902和0.903。ROC曲线下面积分别为0.971和0.96,仪器与DSM-5评分、ICD-11评分和MRS呈正相关。该研究确定了一个包括抑制、兴奋和副动力学维度的三因素模型。结论总体而言,研究结果表明,BFCSI-SV和BFCRS-SV是诊断紧张症的有效和可靠的工具,尤其是当BFCSI-SV的临界分为5分或更高,BFCRS-SV7分或更高时。
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
Factor analysis and validation of the Bush Francis catatonia rating scale-Spain version

Background and objectives

The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument and Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Spain Version (BFCSI-SV and BFCRS-SV) using the ICD-11 and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria as well as other catatonia scales.

Methods

One hundred patients were admitted to the inpatient psychiatry unit at Hospital Universitari Germans Trias I Pujol and two psychiatrists administered the BFCRS-SV to the first 10 patients to assess inter-rater reliability. The BFCRS-SV, BFCSI-SV, Modified Rogers Scale (MRS), Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scales, Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale, and Modified Simpson-Angus Scale were then employed.

Results

The results showed that 27% of patients had catatonia using the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. Additionally, 51% of patients had 2 or more BFCRSI-SV items (Sensitivity: 100%; Specificity: 67.12%). The alpha coefficient values were 0.80 and 0.84 for the BFCSI-SV and BFCRS-SV, respectively, and the intraclass correlation coefficient values were 0.902 and 0.903. The area under the ROC curve was 0.971 and 0.96, and the instruments had a strong positive correlation with the DSM-5 score, ICD-11 score, and MRS. The study identified a three-factor model comprising the inhibition, excitement, and parakinetic dimensions.

Conclusions

Overall, the results suggest that the BFCSI-SV and BFCRS-SV are valid and reliable tools for the diagnosis of catatonia, especially when using a cut-off score of 5 or higher for the BFCSI-SV and 7 or higher for the BFCRS-SV.

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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
43 days
期刊介绍: The European journal of psychiatry is a quarterly publication founded in 1986 and directed by Professor Seva until his death in 2004. It was originally intended to report “the scientific activity of European psychiatrists” and “to bring about a greater degree of communication” among them. However, “since scientific knowledge has no geographical or cultural boundaries, is open to contributions from all over the world”. These principles are maintained in the new stage of the journal, now expanded with the help of an American editor.
期刊最新文献
Psychopathological and cardiometabolic efficacy of a nutritional education intervention based on symbiotics in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Two-arm Randomised Clinical Trial Is it possible to circumnavigate the APIcalypse? On challenges to study mental health in the age of digitalization and AI An expert Delphi consensus for the characteristics of an ideal clozapine-specific side effect scale Psychotherapy training in psychiatry residencies: A review of trainees’ perspectives Exploring direct experience as a core element behind mindfulness-based cognitive therapy
×
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