Division of Research, American Psychiatric Association, Arlington, Virginia 22209-3901, USA.
J Psychosom Res. 2011 Jan;70(1):73-97. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.012. Epub 2010 Mar 31.
Apathy is highly prevalent among neuropsychiatric populations and is associated with greater morbidity and worse functional outcomes. Despite this, it remains understudied and poorly understood, primarily due to lack of consensus definition and clear diagnostic criteria for apathy. Without a gold standard for defining and measuring apathy, the availability of empirically sound measures is imperative. This paper provides a psychometric review of the most commonly used apathy measures and provides recommendations for use and further research.
Pertinent literature databases were searched to identify all available assessment tools for apathy in adults aged 18 and older. Evidence of the reliability and validity of the scales were examined. Alternate variations of scales (e.g., non-English versions) were also evaluated if the validating articles were written in English.
Fifteen apathy scales or subscales were examined. The most psychometrically robust measures for assessing apathy across any disease population appear to be the Apathy Evaluation Scale and the apathy subscale of the Neuropsychiatric Inventory based on the criteria set in this review. For assessment in specific populations, the Dementia Apathy Interview and Rating for patients with Alzheimer's dementia, the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale for schizophrenia populations, and the Frontal System Behavior Scale for patients with frontotemporal deficits are reliable and valid measures.
Clinicians and researchers have numerous apathy scales for use in broad and disease-specific neuropsychiatric populations. Our understanding of apathy would be advanced by research that helps build a consensus as to the definition and diagnosis of apathy and further refine the psychometric properties of all apathy assessment tools.
冷漠在神经精神人群中非常普遍,与更高的发病率和更差的功能结果相关。尽管如此,由于缺乏共识定义和明确的冷漠诊断标准,冷漠仍然研究不足且理解不足。如果没有定义和衡量冷漠的金标准,那么就需要有可靠的经验证据的衡量标准。本文对最常用的冷漠测量工具进行了心理计量学审查,并提供了使用和进一步研究的建议。
搜索了相关的文献数据库,以确定所有适用于 18 岁及以上成年人的冷漠评估工具。检查了这些量表的信度和效度的证据。如果验证文章是用英语写的,则还评估了量表的替代变体(例如,非英语版本)。
检查了 15 种冷漠量表或子量表。根据本综述中设定的标准,评估任何疾病人群的冷漠最具心理计量学可靠性的措施似乎是冷漠评估量表和神经精神疾病问卷的冷漠子量表。对于特定人群的评估,对于阿尔茨海默病患者的痴呆冷漠访谈和评分、精神分裂症患者的阳性和阴性症状量表以及额颞叶缺陷患者的额叶系统行为量表是可靠和有效的测量方法。
临床医生和研究人员有许多用于广泛和特定于疾病的神经精神人群的冷漠量表。如果有助于就冷漠的定义和诊断达成共识,并进一步完善所有冷漠评估工具的心理计量学特性的研究,我们对冷漠的理解将得到推进。