Carlson Eve B, Field Nigel P, Ruzek Josef I, Bryant Richard A, Dalenberg Constance J, Keane Terrence M, Spain David A
National Center for PTSD and VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Department of Veterans Affairs, Menlo Park, CA, USA.
Pacific Graduate School of Psychology, Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Qual Life Res. 2016 Mar;25(3):507-16. doi: 10.1007/s11136-015-1170-9. Epub 2015 Nov 13.
Ambulatory assessment data collection methods are increasingly used to study behavior, experiences, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as emotions, cognitions, and symptoms in clinical samples. Data collected close in time at frequent and fixed intervals can assess PROs that are discrete or changing rapidly and provide information about temporal dynamics or mechanisms of change in clinical samples and individuals, but clinical researchers have not yet routinely and systematically investigated the reliability and validity of such measures or their potential added value over conventional measures. The present study provides a comprehensive, systematic evaluation of the psychometrics of several proximal intensive assessment (PIA) measures in a clinical sample and investigates whether PIA appears to assess meaningful differences in phenomena over time.
Data were collected on a variety of psychopathology constructs on handheld devices every 4 h for 7 days from 62 adults recently exposed to traumatic injury of themselves or a family member. Data were also collected on standard self-report measures of the same constructs at the time of enrollment, 1 week after enrollment, and 2 months after injury.
For all measure scores, results showed good internal consistency across items and within persons over time, provided evidence of convergent, divergent, and construct validity, and showed significant between- and within-subject variability.
Results indicate that PIA measures can provide valid measurement of psychopathology in a clinical sample. PIA may be useful to study mechanisms of change in clinical contexts, identify targets for change, and gauge treatment progress.
动态评估数据收集方法越来越多地用于研究临床样本中的行为、经历以及患者报告结局（PROs），如情绪、认知和症状。在频繁且固定的时间间隔内及时收集的数据可以评估离散的或快速变化的PROs，并提供有关临床样本和个体中变化的时间动态或机制的信息，但临床研究人员尚未常规且系统地研究此类测量方法的可靠性和有效性，或其相对于传统测量方法的潜在附加价值。本研究对临床样本中几种近端密集评估（PIA）测量方法的心理测量学进行了全面、系统的评估，并调查PIA是否似乎能评估现象随时间的有意义差异。
从62名近期自身或家庭成员遭受创伤性损伤的成年人中，使用手持设备每4小时收集一次关于多种精神病理学构念的数据，持续7天。在入组时、入组后1周和受伤后2个月，还收集了相同构念的标准自我报告测量数据。
对于所有测量分数，结果显示各项目之间以及个体随时间具有良好的内部一致性，提供了收敛效度、区分效度和结构效度的证据，并显示出显著的组间和组内变异性。
结果表明，PIA测量方法可以在临床样本中对精神病理学进行有效测量。PIA可能有助于研究临床环境中的变化机制、确定变化目标并评估治疗进展。
