Search

Background: Knowledge about the quality of assessment methods used in the support of people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) is scarce. This study aimed to provide an overview of the assessment methods used in practice and to examine whether these instruments were studied for their psychometric properties for people with PIMD. Method: Professionals (N = 148) from three European countries completed a survey on assessment practices. We performed a literature search to find information about the psychometric properties of the instruments that were identified in the survey. Results: Of the participants, 78.1% used assessments that were not developed for people with PIMD. Documentation on psychometric properties was found for 8 out of 116 instruments. Conclusions: Most of the instruments in use were not designed for people with PIMD, and information about their quality is lacking. Guidelines are needed regarding the use and development of assessment methods for people with PIMD.

Background: Research about the psychometric properties of the Behavioural Appraisal Scales (BAS) in people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) is limited. This study evaluates invariance in factor structure, item bias and convergent validity of the BAS. Methods: Data on the BAS from two studies (n = 25; n = 52) were analysed using the oblique multiple group method. The scale structure and item ordering were compared in the two groups. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating scores on the BAS with scores on two other instruments. Results: Of all items, 16-18% correlated stronger with other subscales of the BAS than the subscale they were originally assigned to. Scale structure and order of difficulty differed between groups. Correlations between the BAS and two other instruments varied from low to excellent (r = 0.48-0.85). Conclusions: The results support the construct validity of the BAS. Removing, reassigning and adapting items may enhance construct validity.

Author(s): Benjamin R. Fletcher 1, Sarah Damery 2, Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi 1,2,3, Nicola Anderson 1,4, Melanie Calvert 1,3,5, Paul Cockwell 1,4,6, James Ferguson 1,3, Mike Horton 7, Muirne C. S. [...], Background The importance of patient-reported outcome measurement in chronic kidney disease (CKD) populations has been established. However, there remains a lack of research that has synthesised data around CKD-specific symptom and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) burden globally, to inform focused measurement of the most relevant patient-important information in a way that minimises patient burden. The aim of this review was to synthesise symptom prevalence/severity and HRQOL data across the following CKD clinical groups globally: (1) stage 1-5 and not on renal replacement therapy (RRT), (2) receiving dialysis, or (3) in receipt of a kidney transplant. Methods and findings MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched for English-language cross-sectional/longitudinal studies reporting prevalence and/or severity of symptoms and/or HRQOL in CKD, published between January 2000 and September 2021, including adult patients with CKD, and measuring symptom prevalence/severity and/or HRQOL using a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). Random effects meta-analyses were used to pool data, stratified by CKD group: not on RRT, receiving dialysis, or in receipt of a kidney transplant. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data, and an exploration of publication bias performed. The search identified 1,529 studies, of which 449, with 199,147 participants from 62 countries, were included in the analysis. Studies used 67 different symptom and HRQOL outcome measures, which provided data on 68 reported symptoms. Random effects meta-analyses highlighted the considerable symptom and HRQOL burden associated with CKD, with fatigue particularly prevalent, both in patients not on RRT (14 studies, 4,139 participants: 70%, 95% CI 60%-79%) and those receiving dialysis (21 studies, 2,943 participants: 70%, 95% CI 64%-76%). A number of symptoms were significantly (p < 0.05 after adjustment for multiple testing) less prevalent and/or less severe within the post-transplantation population, which may suggest attribution to CKD (fatigue, depression, itching, poor mobility, poor sleep, and dry mouth). Quality of life was commonly lower in patients on dialysis (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36] Mental Component Summary [MCS] 45.7 [95% CI 45.5-45.8]; SF-36 Physical Component Summary [PCS] 35.5 [95% CI 35.3-35.6]; 91 studies, 32,105 participants for MCS and PCS) than in other CKD populations (patients not on RRT: SF-36 MCS 66.6 [95% CI 66.5-66.6], p = 0.002; PCS 66.3 [95% CI 66.2-66.4], p = 0.002; 39 studies, 24,600 participants; transplant: MCS 50.0 [95% CI 49.9-50.1], p = 0.002; PCS 48.0 [95% CI 47.9-48.1], p = 0.002; 39 studies, 9,664 participants). Limitations of the analysis are the relatively few studies contributing to symptom severity estimates and inconsistent use of PROMs (different measures and time points) across the included literature, which hindered interpretation. Conclusions The main findings highlight the considerable symptom and HRQOL burden associated with CKD. The synthesis provides a detailed overview of the symptom/HRQOL profile across clinical groups, which may support healthcare professionals when discussing, measuring, and managing the potential treatment burden associated with CKD. Protocol registration PROSPERO CRD42020164737.

The Level of Personality Functioning – Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0) is a 12-item self-report questionnaire developed to gain a quick impression of the severity of personality pathology according to the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). The current study evaluated the construct validity and reliability of the Norwegian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0 in a large clinical sample (N = 1673). Dimensionality was examined using confirmatory factor analysis and bifactor analysis followed by an analysis of distinctiveness of the subscales using the proportional reduction in mean squared error (PRMSE), and the concurrent validity was examined using correlations with self-report questionnaires and clinical interviews assessing PDs according to section II of the DSM-5. Taking the findings of the dimensionality and concurrent validity results together, we found moderate to good support for the use of total scores for the Norwegian version of the LPFS-BF 2.0. We would advise against the use of subscale scores, since the subscales provided only a small amount of reliable unique variance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study examined clinicians' utilization of the SCID-5-AMPD-I funnel structure. Across 237 interviews, conducted as part of the NorAMP study, we found that clinicians administered on average 2-3 adjacent levels under each subdomain, effectively administering only about 50% of available items. Comparing administration patterns of interviews, no two interviews contained the exact same set of administered items. On average, when comparing individual interviews, only about half of the administered items in each interview were administered in both interviews. Cross-classified mixed effects models were estimated to examine the factors affecting item administration. Results indicated that the interplay between patient preliminary scores and item level had a substantial impact on item administration, suggesting clinicians tend to administer items corresponding to expected patient severity. Overall, our findings suggest clinicians utilize the SCID-5-AMPD-I funnel structure to conduct efficient and individually tailored assessments informed by relevant patient characteristics. Adopting similar non-fixed administration procedures for other interviews could potentially provide similar benefits compared to traditional fixed-form administration procedures. The current study can serve as a template for verifying and evaluating future adoptions of non-fixed administration procedures in other interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) includes two main criteria: moderate or greater impairment in personality functioning (Criterion A) and the presence of one or more pathological personality traits (Criterion B). The aim of the study was to investigate the incremental utility of Criteria A and B for predicting DSM-5 Section II personality disorders (PD). The sample (N = 317) consisted of three well-defined groups: non-clinical participants (n = 35), psychiatric patients with PD (n = 193), and without PD (n = 83). All were assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I): Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS), and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Logistic regression analyses showed that the SCID-5-AMPD-I could predict the presence of PDs in general, and the three specific PDs that were investigated (i.e., Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs). The PID-5 domains enhanced prediction of the specific PDs, but not the presence of PDs in general, when entered in the second step. Our results support the AMPD model: Criterion A predicted the presence of DSM-5 Section II PDs in general, whereas measures of Criterion B incremented prediction of Antisocial, Borderline, and Avoidant PDs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of empirical prior information about participants has been shown to substantially improve the efficiency of computerized adaptive tests (CATs) in educational settings. However, it is unclear how these results translate to clinical settings, where small item banks with highly informative polytomous items often lead to very short CATs. We explored the risks and rewards of using prior information in CAT in two simulation studies, rooted in applied clinical examples. In the first simulation, prior precision and bias in the prior location were manipulated independently. Our results show that a precise personalized prior can meaningfully increase CAT efficiency. However, this reward comes with the potential risk of overconfidence in wrong empirical information (i.e., using a precise severely biased prior), which can lead to unnecessarily long tests, or severely biased estimates. The latter risk can be mitigated by setting a minimum number of items that are to be administered during the CAT, or by setting a less precise prior; be it at the expense of canceling out any efficiency gains. The second simulation, with more realistic bias and precision combinations in the empirical prior, places the prevalence of the potential risks in context. With similar estimation bias, an empirical prior reduced CAT test length, compared to a standard normal prior, in 68% of cases, by a median of 20%; while test length increased in only 3% of cases. The use of prior information in CAT seems to be a feasible and simple method to reduce test burden for patients and clinical practitioners alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The DSM-5 presents two competing diagnostic frameworks for personality disorders: the standard categorical model and the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). The AMPD was initially criticized for being too complex and theory laden for clinical implementation. Though inter-rater reliability studies have contested initial claims of the model's complexity, little attention has been paid to how clinicians experience the usability and learnability of either model. We interviewed twenty Norwegian clinicians about their experiences with either the SCID-II/5-PD (n = 9), SCID-5-AMPD-I (n = 8), or both (n = 3). Separate thematic analyses were conducted for SCID-II/5-PD and SCID-5-AMPD-I groups, and group themes were compared. We identified four themes for each group, relating to required skills, training, challenges and information gained through the interview. We found that training and clinical experience were considered to be important for both interviews. Moreover, the SCID-5-AMPD-I was considered to rely more explicitly on theory specific to the development and content of the AMPD model in general and the LPFS specifically We also identified shared and unique challenges and shortcomings of each interview. We comment on how our findings relate to the debate surrounding the AMPD, and recommend development of clear training guidelines for both interviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current study aims to examine the psychometric properties of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders Module I (SCID-5-AMPD-I) assessing the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) in a heterogeneous sample of 282 nonpsychotic patients. Latent variable models were used to investigate the dimensionality of the LPFS. The results indicate that the LPFS, as assessed by the SCID-5-AMPD-I, can be considered as a unidimensional construct that can be measured reliably across a wide range of the latent trait. Threshold parameters for the 12 indicators of the LPFS increased gradually over the latent scale, indicating that the five LPFS levels were ordered as predicted by the model. In general, the increase of threshold parameters was relatively small for the shift from Level 2 to Level 3. A better distinction among the different severity levels might be obtained by fine-tuning the interview guidelines or the Level 2 indicators themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Externalizing Spectrum Inventory aims at assessing personality features that underlie externalizing disorders such as substance abuse and antisocial behaviors. The objective was to replicate the psychometric properties of the 160-item Externalizing Spectrum Inventory in Dutch clinical and non-clinical samples. First, Cronbach's alpha, test-retest reliability and the factor structure were analyzed on a mixed sample of inpatients (n = 149), undergraduates (n = 227), and community participants (n = 178). The factor structure was evaluated through confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses; for the latter Parallel Analysis was used, based on Minimum Rank Factor Analysis. Next, the criterion validity was analyzed using the Aggression Questionnaire and the NEO-Five Factor Inventory as external measures. The Dutch Externalizing Spectrum Inventory subscales showed sufficient reliability (α=.68-.94; ICC=.68-.91), except in the undergraduate sample (α=.49-.96; ICC=.43-.97). The factor structure of the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory was not confirmed and the exploratory analysis yielded different factor solutions across samples. The criterion validity was supported with regard to trait aggression and partly supported with regard to the Five Factor Model. The results suggest that the ESI-160 and its original factor model can be used for prediction purposes. However, further research of the factor structure is strongly recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]