Sutton G A, Atamna R, Steinman A, Mair T S
Koret School of Veterinary Medicine-Veterinary Teaching Hospital, The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, POB 12, Rehovot, 7610001, Israel.
Koret School of Veterinary Medicine-Veterinary Teaching Hospital, The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, POB 12, Rehovot, 7610001, Israel.
Vet J. 2019 Apr;246:71-77. doi: 10.1016/j.tvjl.2019.01.004. Epub 2019 Jan 21.
A valid, reliable and usable scale is needed for assessing severity of acute abdominal pain in horses. The study aim was to compare three different scales: (1) the equine acute abdominal pain scale (EAAPS); (2) a scale described by Mair and Smith (2005; M and S); and (3) a numerical rating scale (NRS). Forty brief films of horses (35 of colic cases and five of control horses) were randomly presented to 46 equine veterinarians from different countries. Participants, randomly divided into three groups, each used one scale. Five randomly selected films were shown twice for determining intra-observer reliability. Speed, ease of use and face validity of the scales were evaluated based on expert opinion. Response rate was excellent: 89% for the EAAPS (16/18), and 100% for the M and S (18/18) and NRS groups (10/10). The intraclass correlation (ICC) of 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI); 0.80-0.92] for EAAPS indicated significantly better inter-observer reliability compared to 0.68 for the M and S and 0.71 for the NRS. Moreover, intra-observer reliability of EAAPS (weighted κ 0.95 [95%CI; 0.92-0.98]) was superior to the other scales (weighted κ 0.78, 0.77, for the M and S and NRS, respectively). Other validity measures (convergent, extreme group, predictive validities), usability (time taken to score the films-speed) and the ease of use of the scales were not significantly different. Face validity (endorsement by experts) was better for the M and S scale than for the EAAPS. The EAAPS showed superior reliability, the M and S scale better face validity, with comparable usability and other tests of validity.
需要一种有效、可靠且实用的量表来评估马急性腹痛的严重程度。本研究的目的是比较三种不同的量表：（1）马急性腹痛量表（EAAPS）；（2）Mair和Smith（2005年）描述的量表（M和S）；以及（3）数字评分量表（NRS）。向来自不同国家的46名马兽医随机播放了40段马的简短视频（35段绞痛病例视频和5段对照马视频）。参与者被随机分为三组，每组使用一种量表。随机选择的五段视频播放了两次，以确定观察者内信度。根据专家意见评估了量表的速度、易用性和表面效度。回复率很高：EAAPS组为89%（16/18），M和S组以及NRS组均为100%（18/18和10/10）。EAAPS的组内相关系数（ICC）为0.86[95%置信区间（CI）；0.80 - 0.92]，表明其观察者间信度显著优于M和S量表的0.68以及NRS量表的0.71。此外，EAAPS的观察者内信度（加权κ值为0.95[95%CI；0.92 - 0.98]）优于其他量表（M和S量表以及NRS量表的加权κ值分别为0.78和0.77）。其他效度指标（收敛效度、极端组效度、预测效度）、易用性（给视频评分所需时间 - 速度）以及量表的易用程度没有显著差异。M和S量表的表面效度（专家认可）优于EAAPS量表。EAAPS量表显示出更高的信度，M和S量表具有更好的表面效度，两者在易用性和其他效度测试方面相当。
