Salek M S, Khan G K, Finlay A Y
Medicines Research Unit, University of Wales College of Cardiff.
Qual Life Res. 1996 Feb;5(1):131-8. doi: 10.1007/BF00435978.
The purpose of this study was to examine and compare the reliability and validity of two acne-specific measures, the Cardiff Acne Disability Index (CADI), the Acne Disability Index (ADI) and a general health status instrument, the United Kingdom Sickness Impact Profile (UKSIP). The test-retest reliability was carried out for the UKSIP, ADI and CADI with an interval of 10 days in 70 patients with acne. The correlation coefficient for the overall UKSIP score was high (r = 0.99, p < 0.001) for the CADI was 0.96 (p < 0.001) and for the ADI was 0.98 (p < 0.001). Individual category score correlations in the UKSIP and ADI were greater than 0.83. Tests of internal consistency of the instruments scored highly. A further 100 patients with acne and 50 controls completed all three instruments. The overall UKSIP mean score of patients was 5.6 (sd = 4.7) and of controls was 0.45. The ADI mean patient score was 40.3%, controls 17.6%. The CADI mean patient score was 42.1%, controls 13.2%. The CADI was the only instrument that correlated with the clinical acne severity score (p < 0.05); the UKSIP score correlated with the CADI score (p < 0.05) but not with the ADI score. This study has established aspects of the reliability and validity of the UKSIP, the ADI and the CADI.
本研究的目的是检验并比较两种痤疮特异性测量工具，即加的夫痤疮残疾指数（CADI）、痤疮残疾指数（ADI），以及一种一般健康状况工具，即英国疾病影响量表（UKSIP）的信度和效度。对70例痤疮患者的UKSIP、ADI和CADI进行了重测信度检验，间隔时间为10天。UKSIP总分的相关系数较高（r = 0.99，p < 0.001），CADI为0.96（p < 0.001），ADI为0.98（p < 0.001）。UKSIP和ADI中各分类得分的相关性大于0.83。这些工具的内部一致性检验得分很高。另外100例痤疮患者和50例对照完成了所有三种工具的测试。患者的UKSIP总体平均得分为5.6（标准差 = 4.7），对照为0.45。患者的ADI平均得分为40.3%，对照为17.6%。患者的CADI平均得分为42.1%，对照为13.2%。CADI是唯一与临床痤疮严重程度评分相关的工具（p < 0.05）；UKSIP得分与CADI得分相关（p < 0.05），但与ADI得分无关。本研究确定了UKSIP、ADI和CADI在信度和效度方面的情况。
