Programa de Pos-Graduacao em Ciencias da Saude, Campus Universitario Natal, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN), RN, BR.
Departamento de Psicologia, Faculdade Pernambucana de Saude (FPS), Recife, PE, BR.
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2020 Dec 9;75:e1863. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2020/e1863. eCollection 2020.
This study aimed to translate the Prefrontal Symptoms Inventory (PSI) (abbreviated version) for the elderly into Brazilian Portuguese, evaluate its psychometric properties, and investigate if the PSI could distinguish between groups with (clinical group) and without (non-clinical group) a diagnosis of probable Alzheimer's disease (AD).
The PSI was idiomatically and culturally adapted, and then administered to 256 individuals over 60 years of age who also completed a clinical interview, the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS)-15, and the Frontal Assessment Battery (FAB).
The results indicated satisfactory adjustment and adequate reliability (Ω of 0.83 and α=0.80) for the uni-factorial model. The non-clinical group showed significant correlations between the PSI-16, GDS-15, MMSE, and FAB and its six subtests. In the clinical group, there were negative correlations between the PSI-16, MMSE, and the FAB and the conceptual subtest. The groups differed statistically significantly, with the clinical sample showing the highest PSI-16 score. In the non-clinical group, there were significant positive correlations between age and PSI-16, and negative correlations between education and PSI-16.
The results of this study indicate that the PSI-16 can be used as a valid and reliable screening tool for clinical use in the elderly with and without pathology.
本研究旨在将 Prefrontal Symptoms Inventory（PSI）（缩写版）翻译为巴西葡萄牙语，并评估其心理测量学特性，同时考察 PSI 是否能够区分有（临床组）和无（非临床组）可能的阿尔茨海默病（AD）诊断的人群。
对 PSI 进行了成语和文化适应性调整，然后对 256 名 60 岁以上的个体进行了测试，这些个体还完成了临床访谈、简易精神状态检查（MMSE）、老年抑郁量表（GDS-15）和额叶评估量表（FAB）。
结果表明，单因素模型的调整和可靠性均令人满意（Ω为 0.83，α=0.80）。非临床组中 PSI-16、GDS-15、MMSE 和 FAB 及其六个子测试之间存在显著相关性。在临床组中，PSI-16、MMSE 和 FAB 与概念性子测试之间呈负相关。两组在统计学上存在显著差异，临床组的 PSI-16 评分最高。在非临床组中，年龄与 PSI-16 之间呈显著正相关，而教育与 PSI-16 之间呈负相关。
本研究结果表明，PSI-16 可作为一种有效的、可靠的筛查工具，用于临床和非临床老年人。
