Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2024 E. Monument Street, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA.
Johns Hopkins University Center on Aging and Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Sep 10;18(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0552-4.
This study aimed to describe the level of agreement of three commonly used delirium instruments: the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98 (DRS-R-98), Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS), and Confusion Assessment Method-Severity (CAM-S).
We used data from a prospective clinical research study, in which a team of trained lay interviewers administered each instrument along with supporting interview and cognitive assessments in the same group of patients daily while in the hospital (N = 352). We used item response theory methods to co-calibrate the instruments.
The latent traits underlying the three measures, capturing the severity of a delirium assessment, had a high degree of correlation (r's > .82). Unidimensional factor models fit well, facilitating co-calibration of the instruments. Across instruments, the less intense symptoms were generally items reflecting cognitive impairment. Although the intensity of delirium severity for most in the sample was relatively low, many of the item thresholds for the delirium severity scales are high (i.e., in the more severe range of the latent ability distribution). This indicates that even people with severe delirium may have a low probability of endorsing the highest severity categories for many items. Co-calibration enabled us to derive crosswalks to map delirium severity scores among the delirium instruments.
These delirium instruments measure the same underlying construct of delirium severity. Relative locations of items may inform design of refined measurement instruments. Mapping of overall delirium severity scores across the delirium severity instruments enabled us to derive crosswalks, which allow scores to be translated across instruments, facilitating comparison and combination of delirium studies for integrative analysis.
本研究旨在描述三种常用谵妄工具的一致性水平:修订版 98 项谵妄评定量表(DRS-R-98)、谵妄评定量表(MDAS)和意识模糊评估法严重程度(CAM-S)。
我们使用了一项前瞻性临床研究的数据,研究中,一组经过培训的非专业访员每天在医院中对同一组患者同时使用这些工具以及辅助访谈和认知评估进行评估(N=352)。我们使用项目反应理论方法对这些工具进行协同校准。
这三种测量方法背后的潜在特征,捕捉了谵妄评估的严重程度,具有高度相关性(r 值>0.82)。单维因素模型拟合良好,促进了仪器的协同校准。在所有仪器中,症状较轻的一般是反映认知障碍的项目。尽管大多数样本中的谵妄严重程度相对较低,但许多谵妄严重程度量表的项目阈值较高(即处于潜在能力分布的较严重范围)。这表明,即使是患有严重谵妄的人,对许多项目的最高严重程度类别也可能不太可能认可。协同校准使我们能够得出交叉路口,以映射谵妄严重程度量表之间的谵妄严重程度得分。
这些谵妄工具测量的是相同的谵妄严重程度的潜在结构。项目的相对位置可能为设计更精细的测量工具提供信息。在谵妄严重程度工具之间映射整体谵妄严重程度得分使我们能够得出交叉路口,从而可以在工具之间转换分数,促进对谵妄研究的比较和组合,以便进行综合分析。