评估成人轻度智力障碍或边缘性智力功能的创伤后应激障碍

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities Pub Date : 2020-04-02 DOI:10.1080/19315864.2020.1753267
L. Mevissen, R. Didden, A. de Jongh, H. Korzilius
{"title":"评估成人轻度智力障碍或边缘性智力功能的创伤后应激障碍","authors":"L. Mevissen, R. Didden, A. de Jongh, H. Korzilius","doi":"10.1080/19315864.2020.1753267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Introduction: Persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning (MID-BIF, IQ 50–85) are at high risk for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A diagnostic instrument to establish a valid and reliable DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis in adults with MID-BIF was lacking. Aim of the current study was to determine the reliability and validity of the Adapted ADIS-C PTSD-adults for the assessment of PTSD according to DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 in adults with MID-BIF Method: 106 adults (18– 72 years old) with MID-BIF were interviewed using the Adapted ADIS-C PTSD-adults Results: Agreement between raters appeared to be good (mean Cohen’s kappa for traumatic event scores 0.84, fulfillment of PTSD A-criterion 0.50, and PTSD symptom scores 0.90). Content validity was supported by a significant positive association with scores on the IES-IDs, a DSM-IV PTSD screening instrument (DSM-IV: r = .58; DSM-5: r = .43; ps <.001). Convergent validity appeared to be good considering positive correlations between rates of PTSD symptoms and scores on the ADESS, measuring symptoms of anxiety and stress, depression, and social avoidance (DSM-IV: r = .47; DSM-5: r = .49; ps <.001) Conclusion: The Adapted ADIS-C PTSD-adults is suitable for assessing DSM-5 PTSD in adults with MID-BIF, an important step to gain access to trauma-focused interventions that have shown to be applicable and potentially effective for this high-risk target group.","PeriodicalId":45864,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities","volume":"35 3 1","pages":"110 - 126"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Adults with Mild Intellectual Disabilities or Borderline Intellectual Functioning\",\"authors\":\"L. Mevissen, R. Didden, A. de Jongh, H. Korzilius\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19315864.2020.1753267\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Introduction: Persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning (MID-BIF, IQ 50–85) are at high risk for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A diagnostic instrument to establish a valid and reliable DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis in adults with MID-BIF was lacking. Aim of the current study was to determine the reliability and validity of the Adapted ADIS-C PTSD-adults for the assessment of PTSD according to DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 in adults with MID-BIF Method: 106 adults (18– 72 years old) with MID-BIF were interviewed using the Adapted ADIS-C PTSD-adults Results: Agreement between raters appeared to be good (mean Cohen’s kappa for traumatic event scores 0.84, fulfillment of PTSD A-criterion 0.50, and PTSD symptom scores 0.90). Content validity was supported by a significant positive association with scores on the IES-IDs, a DSM-IV PTSD screening instrument (DSM-IV: r = .58; DSM-5: r = .43; ps <.001). Convergent validity appeared to be good considering positive correlations between rates of PTSD symptoms and scores on the ADESS, measuring symptoms of anxiety and stress, depression, and social avoidance (DSM-IV: r = .47; DSM-5: r = .49; ps <.001) Conclusion: The Adapted ADIS-C PTSD-adults is suitable for assessing DSM-5 PTSD in adults with MID-BIF, an important step to gain access to trauma-focused interventions that have shown to be applicable and potentially effective for this high-risk target group.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45864,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities\",\"volume\":\"35 3 1\",\"pages\":\"110 - 126\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19315864.2020.1753267\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19315864.2020.1753267","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

摘要简介:轻度智力残疾或边缘性智力功能障碍(MID-BIF, IQ 50-85)的患者是创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)的高危人群。缺乏一种诊断工具来建立有效和可靠的DSM-5对成人MID-BIF的PTSD诊断。本研究的目的是根据DSM-IV-TR和DSM-5确定适应性ADIS-C PTSD-成人对中度bif成人PTSD评估的信度和效度。采用适应性ADIS-C PTSD-成人对106例(18 - 72岁)中度bif成人进行了访谈。结果:评分者之间的一致性很好(创伤事件的平均Cohen kappa得分0.84,PTSD a标准的满足程度0.50,PTSD症状得分0.90)。内容效度与DSM-IV PTSD筛查工具ies - id得分呈显著正相关(DSM-IV: r = 0.58;DSM-5: r = 0.43;ps <措施)。考虑到PTSD症状率与ADESS评分、焦虑和压力、抑郁和社交回避症状的测量之间的正相关,收敛效度似乎很好(DSM-IV: r = 0.47;DSM-5: r = 0.49;结论:改编版ADIS-C成人PTSD适用于评估中bif成人的DSM-5 PTSD,这是获得以创伤为重点的干预措施的重要一步,该干预措施已被证明适用于这一高危目标群体并可能有效。
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
Assessing Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Adults with Mild Intellectual Disabilities or Borderline Intellectual Functioning
ABSTRACT Introduction: Persons with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning (MID-BIF, IQ 50–85) are at high risk for the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). A diagnostic instrument to establish a valid and reliable DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis in adults with MID-BIF was lacking. Aim of the current study was to determine the reliability and validity of the Adapted ADIS-C PTSD-adults for the assessment of PTSD according to DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 in adults with MID-BIF Method: 106 adults (18– 72 years old) with MID-BIF were interviewed using the Adapted ADIS-C PTSD-adults Results: Agreement between raters appeared to be good (mean Cohen’s kappa for traumatic event scores 0.84, fulfillment of PTSD A-criterion 0.50, and PTSD symptom scores 0.90). Content validity was supported by a significant positive association with scores on the IES-IDs, a DSM-IV PTSD screening instrument (DSM-IV: r = .58; DSM-5: r = .43; ps <.001). Convergent validity appeared to be good considering positive correlations between rates of PTSD symptoms and scores on the ADESS, measuring symptoms of anxiety and stress, depression, and social avoidance (DSM-IV: r = .47; DSM-5: r = .49; ps <.001) Conclusion: The Adapted ADIS-C PTSD-adults is suitable for assessing DSM-5 PTSD in adults with MID-BIF, an important step to gain access to trauma-focused interventions that have shown to be applicable and potentially effective for this high-risk target group.
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
3.30
自引率
8.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Suicidality and Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review Mental Functions in People with Mild Intellectual Disability to Borderline Intellectual Functioning Personal Growth Among Parents of Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities and Psychopathology: The Role of Social Support and Attitudes Toward Service Use Clinical Opinion: Differences in Addressing Needs of Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities for In-Person and Digital Psychotherapy Impact of Crisis Care on Psychiatric Admission in Adults with Intellectual Disability and Mental Illness And/Or Challenging Behavior: A Systematic Review
×
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