Rating Scale Analysis of the Agitated Behavior Scale

2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 656-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer A. Bogner ◽  
John D. Corrigan ◽  
Rita K. Bode ◽  
Allen W. Heinemann
Assessment ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-85 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie C. Stout ◽  
Rebecca E. Ready ◽  
Janet Grace ◽  
Paul F. Malloy ◽  
Jane S. Paulsen

The Frontal Systems Behavior Scale (FrSBe), formerly called the Frontal Lobe Personality Scale (FLOPS), is a brief behavior rating scale with demonstrated validity for the assessment of behavior disturbances associated with damage to the frontal-subcortical brain circuits. The authors report an exploratory principal factor analysis of the FrSBe–Family Version in a sample including 324 neurological patients and research participants, of which about 63% were diagnosed with neurodegenerative diseases (Huntington's, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's diseases). The three-factor solution accounted for a modest level of variance (41%) and confirmed a factor structure consistent with the three subscales proposed on the theoretical basis of the frontal systems. Most items (83%) from the FrSBe subscales of Apathy, Disinhibition, and Executive Dysfunction loaded saliently on three corresponding factors. The FrSBe factor structure supports its utility for assessing both the severity of the three frontal syndromes in aggregate and separately.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 672-695
Author(s):  
Thomas DeVaney

This article presents a discussion and illustration of Mokken scale analysis (MSA), a nonparametric form of item response theory (IRT), in relation to common IRT models such as Rasch and Guttman scaling. The procedure can be used for dichotomous and ordinal polytomous data commonly used with questionnaires. The assumptions of MSA are discussed as well as characteristics that differentiate a Mokken scale from a Guttman scale. MSA is illustrated using the mokken package with R Studio and a data set that included over 3,340 responses to a modified version of the Statistical Anxiety Rating Scale. Issues addressed in the illustration include monotonicity, scalability, and invariant ordering. The R script for the illustration is included.


2021 ◽  
Vol 168 ◽  
pp. 110376
Author(s):  
Bruno Bonfá-Araujo ◽  
Natália Costa Simões ◽  
Samanta Romanin Zuchetto ◽  
Nelson Hauck-Filho

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Boadie W. Dunlop ◽  
Sagar V. Parikh ◽  
Anthony J. Rothschild ◽  
Michael E. Thase ◽  
Charles DeBattista ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Previous research suggests that the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D17) is less sensitive in detecting differences between active treatment and placebo for major depressive disorder (MDD) than is the HAM-D6 scale, which focuses on six core depression symptoms. Whether HAM-D6 shows greater sensitivity when comparing two active MDD treatment arms is unknown. Methods This post hoc analysis used data from the intent-to-treat (ITT) cohort (N = 1541) of the Genomics Used to Improve DEpression Decisions (GUIDED) trial, a rater- and patient-blinded randomized controlled trial. GUIDED compared combinatorial pharmacogenomics-guided care with treatment as usual (TAU) in patients with MDD. Percent of symptom improvement, response rate and remission rate from baseline to week 8 were evaluated using both scales. Analyses were performed for the full cohort and for the subset of patients who at baseline were taking medications predicted by the test to have moderate or significant gene-drug interactions. A Mokken scale analysis was conducted to compare the homogeneity of HAM-D17 with that of HAM-D6. Results At week 8, the guided-care arm demonstrated statistically significant benefit over TAU when the HAM-D6 (∆ = 4.4%, p = 0.023) was used as the continuous measure of symptom improvement, but not when using the HAM-D17 (∆ = 3.2%, p = 0.069). Response rates increased significantly for guided-care compared with TAU when evaluated using both HAM-D6 (∆ = 7.0%, p = 0.004) and HAM-D17 (∆ = 6.3%, p = 0.007). Remission rates also were significantly greater for guided-care versus TAU using both measures (HAM-D6 ∆ = 4.6%, p = 0.031; HAM-D17 ∆ = 5.5%, p = 0.005). Patients in the guided-care arm who at baseline were taking medications predicted to have gene-drug interactions showed further increased benefit over TAU at week 8 for symptom improvement (∆ = 7.3%, p = 0.004) response (∆ = 10.0%, p = 0.001) and remission (∆ = 7.9%, p = 0.005) using HAM-D6. All outcomes showed continued improvement through week 24. Mokken scale analysis demonstrated the homogeneity and unidimensionality of HAM-D6, but not of HAM-D17, across treatment arms. Conclusions The HAM-D6 scale identified a statistically significant difference in symptom improvement between combinatorial pharmacogenomics-guided care and TAU, whereas the HAM-D17 did not. The demonstrated utility of pharmacogenomics-guided treatment over TAU as detected by the HAM-D6 highlights its value for future biomarker-guided trials comparing active treatment arms. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02109939. Registered 10 April 2014.


2009 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-203 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan T. Williams ◽  
◽  
Allen W. Heinemann ◽  
Rita K. Bode ◽  
Catherine S. Wilson ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 683-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas A. Doninger ◽  
Rita K. Bode ◽  
Allen W. Heinemann ◽  
Christa Ambrose

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document