Research and Academic Institute of Athens, Greece.
J Psychiatr Res. 2013 Jul;47(7):966-71. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.02.012. Epub 2013 Mar 21.
Delirium's characteristic fluctuation in symptom severity complicates the assessment of test-retest reliability of scales using classical analyses, but application of modelling to longitudinal data offers a new approach. We evaluated test-retest reliability of the delirium rating scale (DRS) and delirium rating scale-revised-98 (DRS-R98), two widely used instruments with high validity and inter-rater reliability. Two existing longitudinal datasets for each scale included DSM-IV criteria for delirium diagnosis and repeated measurements using the DRS or DRS-R98. To estimate the reliability coefficients RT and RΛ for each scale we used a macros provided by Dr. Laenen at http://www.ibiostat.be/software/measurement.asp. For each dataset a linear mixed-effects model was fitted to estimate the variance-covariance parameters. A total of 531 cases with between 4 and 9 measurement points across studies including both delirious and non-delirious patients. Comorbid dementia in the datasets varied from 27% to 55%. Overall RT for the DRS were 0.71 and 0.50 and for DRS-R98 0.75 and 0.84. RΛ values for DRS were 0.99 and 0.98 and for DRS-R98 were 0.92 and 0.96. Individual RT measures for DRS-R98 and DRS across visits within studies showed more range than overall values. Our models found high overall reliability for both scales. Multiple factors impact a scale's reliability values including sample size, repeated measurements, patient population, etc in addition to rater variability.
谵妄症状严重程度的特征波动使得使用经典分析评估量表的重测信度变得复杂,但对纵向数据的建模提供了一种新方法。我们评估了两种广泛使用的具有高有效性和评分者间可靠性的仪器,即谵妄评定量表(DRS)和修订版谵妄评定量表 98 版(DRS-R98)的重测信度。这两个现有纵向数据集的每个量表都包含DSM-IV 谵妄诊断标准和使用 DRS 或 DRS-R98 的重复测量。为了估计每个量表的可靠性系数 RT 和 RΛ,我们使用了 Dr. Laenen 在 http://www.ibiostat.be/software/measurement.asp 上提供的宏。对于每个数据集,我们拟合了一个线性混合效应模型来估计方差-协方差参数。共有 531 例患者,包括研究中患有和未患有谵妄的患者,在研究中具有 4 至 9 个测量点。数据集中合并的痴呆症从 27%到 55%不等。DRS 的总体 RT 分别为 0.71 和 0.50,DRS-R98 的 RT 分别为 0.75 和 0.84。DRS 的 RΛ 值分别为 0.99 和 0.98,DRS-R98 的 RΛ 值分别为 0.92 和 0.96。研究中每次就诊的 DRS-R98 和 DRS 的个体 RT 测量值比总体值范围更大。我们的模型发现这两个量表的整体可靠性都很高。除了评分者的变异性外,样本量、重复测量、患者人群等多种因素都会影响量表的可靠性值。