Gouvier W D, Blanton P D, LaPorte K K, Nepomuceno C
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1987 Feb;68(2):94-7.
The Disability Rating Scale (DRS) and the Levels of Cognitive Functioning Scale (LCFS) are both widely used to monitor recovery from head injury, despite the total lack of published research on the reliability and validity of the LCFS, and the fragmented and incomplete reports on these characteristics of the DRS. Forty head-injured inpatients were evaluated with the DRS and LCFS four times weekly throughout their rehabilitation hospitalization. The DRS and LCFS were compared in terms of how consistently ratings could be made by different raters, how stable those ratings were from day to day, their relative correlation with Stover Zeiger (S-Z) ratings collected concurrently at admission, and with S-Z, Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS), and Expanded GOS (EGOS) ratings collected concurrently at discharge, and finally in the ability of admission DRS and LCFS scores to predict discharge ratings on the S-Z, GOS, and EGOS. Results suggest that both scales possess significant degrees of test-retest and interrater reliabilities, and of concurrent and predictive validities, but the DRS surpasses the LCFS in nearly every regard. These results offer psychometric justification favoring the use of the DRS for monitoring recovery from head injury.
残疾评定量表（DRS）和认知功能水平量表（LCFS）都被广泛用于监测头部损伤后的恢复情况，尽管关于LCFS的信度和效度完全缺乏已发表的研究，而关于DRS这些特征的报告也零散且不完整。在整个康复住院期间，每周对40名头部受伤的住院患者进行4次DRS和LCFS评估。比较了DRS和LCFS在不同评估者评分的一致性、评分每日的稳定性、它们与入院时同时收集的斯托弗·齐格（S-Z）评分的相对相关性，以及与出院时同时收集的S-Z、格拉斯哥预后量表（GOS）和扩展GOS（EGOS）评分的相关性，最后比较了入院时DRS和LCFS评分预测出院时S-Z、GOS和EGOS评分的能力。结果表明，这两个量表都具有显著程度的重测信度、评估者间信度、同时效度和预测效度，但DRS在几乎所有方面都超过了LCFS。这些结果为支持使用DRS监测头部损伤后的恢复情况提供了心理测量学依据。
