scholarly journals ShareDisk: A novel visual tool to assess perceptions about who should be responsible for supporting persons with mental health problems

2020 ◽  
Vol 66 (4) ◽  
pp. 411-418
Author(s):  
Srividya N Iyer ◽  
Megan A Pope ◽  
Gerald Jordan ◽  
Greeshma Mohan ◽  
Heleen Loohuis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Language And Literacy ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Visual Tool ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
High Test

Objectives: Views on who bears how much responsibility for supporting individuals with mental health problems may vary across stakeholders (patients, families, clinicians) and cultures. Perceptions about responsibility may influence the extent to which stakeholders get involved in treatment. Our objective was to report on the development, psychometric properties and usability of a first-ever tool of this construct. Methods: We created a visual weighting disk called ‘ShareDisk’, measuring perceived extent of responsibility for supporting persons with mental health problems. It was administered (twice, 2 weeks apart) to patients, family members and clinicians in Chennai, India ( N = 30, 30 and 15, respectively) and Montreal, Canada ( N = 30, 32 and 15, respectively). Feedback regarding its usability was also collected. Results: The English, French and Tamil versions of the ShareDisk demonstrated high test–retest reliability ( rs = .69–.98) and were deemed easy to understand and use. Conclusion: The ShareDisk is a promising measure of a hitherto unmeasured construct that is easily deployable in settings varying in language and literacy levels. Its clinical utility lies in clarifying stakeholder roles. It can help researchers investigate how stakeholders’ roles are perceived and how these perceptions may be shaped by and shape the organization and experience of healthcare across settings.

scholarly journals Validation of the Strengths and Difficulties Self-Report in Norwegian Sign Language

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Margaret Aanondsen ◽  
Thomas Jozefiak ◽  
Kerstin Heiling ◽  
Tormod Rimehaug
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Sign Language ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Equation Modeling ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Strengths And Difficulties ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Abstract The majority of studies on mental health in deaf and hard-of-hearing (DHH) children report a higher level of mental health problems. Inconsistencies in reports of prevalence of mental health problems have been found to be related to a number of factors such as language skills, cognitive ability, heterogeneous samples as well as validity problems caused by using written measures designed for typically hearing children. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of the self-report version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Norwegian Sign Language (NSL; SDQ-NSL) and in written Norwegian (SDQ-NOR). Forty-nine DHH children completed the SDQ-NSL as well as the SDQ-NOR in randomized order and their parents completed the parent version of the SDQ-NOR and a questionnaire on hearing and language-related information. Internal consistency was examined using Dillon–Goldstein’s rho, test–retest reliability using intraclass correlations, construct validity by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and partial least squares structural equation modeling. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were established as acceptable to good. CFA resulted in a best fit for the proposed five-factor model for both versions, although not all fit indices reached acceptable levels. The reliability and validity of the SDQ-NSL seem promising even though the validation was based on a small sample size.

scholarly journals Whose responsibility is it to address the needs of persons with mental health problems? Development of a scale to assess how stakeholders distribute responsibilities across geo-cultural contexts

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Srividya Iyer ◽  
Megan Pope ◽  
Aarati Taksal ◽  
Greeshma Mohan ◽  
Thara Rangaswamy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Cultural Contexts ◽  
The Government ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Abstract Background Individuals with mental health problems have multiple, often inadequately met needs. Responsibility for meeting these needs frequently falls to patients, their families/caregivers, and governments. Little is known about stakeholders' views of who should be responsible for these needs and there are no measures to assess this construct. This study’s objectives were to present the newly designed Whose Responsibility Scale (WRS), which assesses how stakeholders apportion responsibility to persons with mental health problems, their families, and the government for addressing various needs of persons with mental health problems, and to report its psychometric properties. Methods The 22-item WRS asks respondents to assign relative responsibility to the government vis-à-vis persons with mental health problems, government vis-à-vis families, and families vis-à-vis persons with mental health problems for seven support needs. The items were modelled on a World Values Survey item comparing the government’s and people’s responsibility for ensuring that everyone is provided for. We administered English, Tamil, and French versions to 57 patients, 60 family members, and 27 clinicians at two early psychosis programs in Chennai, India, and Montreal, Canada, evaluating test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and ease of use. Results Test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients) ranged from excellent to good across stakeholders (patients, families, and clinicians); settings (Montreal and Chennai), and languages (English, French, and Tamil). Internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alphas) ranged from acceptable to excellent. The WRS scored average on ease of comprehension and completion. Scores were spread across the 1–10 range, suggesting that the scale captured variations in views on how responsibility for meeting needs should be distributed. On select items, scores at one end of the scale were never endorsed, but these reflected expected views about specific needs (e.g., Chennai patients never endorsed patients as being substantially more responsible for housing needs than families). Conclusions The WRS is a promising measure for use across geo-cultural contexts to inform mental health policies, and to foster dialogue and accountability among stakeholders about roles and responsibilities. It can help researchers study stakeholders’ views about responsibilities, and how these are shaped by and shape sociocultural contexts and mental healthcare systems.

scholarly journals Whose responsibility? Part 1 of 2: A scale to assess how stakeholders apportion responsibilities for addressing the needs of persons with mental health problems

2022 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Srividya N. Iyer ◽  
Megan Pope ◽  
Aarati Taksal ◽  
Greeshma Mohan ◽  
Thara Rangaswamy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Correlation Coefficients ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Ease Of Use ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
The Government ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Abstract Background Individuals with mental health problems have multiple, often inadequately met needs. Responsibility for meeting these needs frequently falls to patients, their families/caregivers, and governments. Little is known about stakeholders' views of who should be responsible for these needs and there are no measures to assess this construct. This study’s objectives were to present the newly designed Whose Responsibility Scale (WRS), which assesses how stakeholders apportion responsibility to persons with mental health problems, their families, and the government for addressing various needs of persons with mental health problems, and to report its psychometric properties. Methods The 22-item WRS asks respondents to assign relative responsibility to the government versus persons with mental health problems, government versus families, and families versus persons with mental health problems for seven support needs. The items were modelled on a World Values Survey item comparing the government’s and people’s responsibility for ensuring that everyone is provided for. We administered English, Tamil, and French versions to 57 patients, 60 family members, and 27 clinicians at two early psychosis programs in Chennai, India, and Montreal, Canada, evaluating test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and ease of use. Internal consistency estimates were also calculated for confirmatory purposes with the larger samples from the main comparative study. Results Test–retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients) generally ranged from excellent to fair across stakeholders (patients, families, and clinicians), settings (Montreal and Chennai), and languages (English, French, and Tamil). In the standardization and larger confirmatory samples, internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alphas) ranged from acceptable to excellent. The WRS scored average on ease of comprehension and completion. Scores were spread across the 1–10 range, suggesting that the scale captured variations in views on how responsibility for meeting needs should be distributed. On select items, scores at one end of the scale were never endorsed, but these reflected expected views about specific needs (e.g., Chennai patients never endorsed patients as being substantially more responsible for housing needs than families). Conclusions The WRS is a promising measure for use across geo-cultural contexts to inform mental health policies, and to foster dialogue and accountability among stakeholders about roles and responsibilities. It can help researchers study stakeholders’ views about responsibilities, and how these shape and are shaped by sociocultural contexts and mental healthcare systems.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of gross motor assessment tools for children: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e021734 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Griffiths ◽  
Rachel Toovey ◽  
Prue E Morgan ◽  
Alicia J Spittle
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Motor Assessment ◽  
Gross Motor ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Validity Test ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

ObjectiveGross motor assessment tools have a critical role in identifying, diagnosing and evaluating motor difficulties in childhood. The objective of this review was to systematically evaluate the psychometric properties and clinical utility of gross motor assessment tools for children aged 2–12 years.MethodA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED was performed between May and July 2017. Methodological quality was assessed with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments checklist and an outcome measures rating form was used to evaluate reliability, validity and clinical utility of assessment tools.ResultsSeven assessment tools from 37 studies/manuals met the inclusion criteria: Bayley Scale of Infant and Toddler Development-III (Bayley-III), Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-2 (BOT-2), Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2 (MABC-2), McCarron Assessment of Neuromuscular Development (MAND), Neurological Sensory Motor Developmental Assessment (NSMDA), Peabody Developmental Motor Scales-2 (PDMS-2) and Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (TGMD-2). Methodological quality varied from poor to excellent. Validity and internal consistency varied from fair to excellent (α=0.5–0.99). The Bayley-III, NSMDA and MABC-2 have evidence of predictive validity. Test–retest reliability is excellent in the BOT-2 (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)=0.80–0.99), PDMS-2 (ICC=0.97), MABC-2 (ICC=0.83–0.96) and TGMD-2 (ICC=0.81–0.92). TGMD-2 has the highest inter-rater (ICC=0.88–0.93) and intrarater reliability (ICC=0.92–0.99).ConclusionsThe majority of gross motor assessments for children have good-excellent validity. Test–retest reliability is highest in the BOT-2, MABC-2, PDMS-2 and TGMD-2. The Bayley-III has the best predictive validity at 2 years of age for later motor outcome. None of the assessment tools demonstrate good evaluative validity. Further research on evaluative gross motor assessment tools are urgently needed.

scholarly journals Psychometric properties of the Mental Health Recovery Star

2012 ◽  
Vol 201 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Killaspy ◽  
Sarah White ◽  
Tatiana L. Taylor ◽  
Michael King
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Intraclass Correlation ◽  
Community Services ◽  
Mental Health Recovery ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

BackgroundThe Mental Health Recovery Star (MHRS) is a popular outcome measure rated collaboratively by staff and service users, but its psychometric properties are unknown.AimsTo assess the MHRS's acceptability, reliability and convergent validity.MethodA total of 172 services users and 120 staff from in-patient and community services participated. Interrater reliability of staff-only ratings and test–retest reliability of staff-only and collaborative ratings were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Convergent validity between MHRS ratings and standardised measures of social functioning and recovery was assessed using Pearson correlation. The influence of collaboration on ratings was assessed using descriptive statistics and ICCs.ResultsThe MHRS was relatively quick and easy to use and had good test–retest reliability, but interrater reliability was inadequate. Collaborative ratings were slightly higher than staff-only ratings. Convergent validity suggests it assesses social function more than recovery.ConclusionsThe MHRS cannot be recommended as a routine clinical outcome tool but may facilitate collaborative care planning.

Validation of the Portuguese version of the consumer experiences of stigma questionnaire (CESQ)

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s812-s813
Author(s):  
L. Mendonça ◽  
S. Azeredo-Lopes ◽  
I. Landeiro ◽  
J. Grácio ◽  
M. Gonçalves-Pereira
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Portuguese Version ◽  
Stigma And Discrimination ◽  
Consumer Experiences ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

IntroductionTackling stigma and discrimination is a major concern worldwide as demonstrated e.g. in the European Mental Health Action Plan. We need valid and feasible indicators to assess the stigma of mental illness. In Portugal, validated scales focused on mental health consumers’ personal experiences of stigma are scarce. The consumer experiences of stigma questionnaire (CESQ) (Wahl, 1999), developed in collaboration with the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, focuses on users’ real life experiences. Although it was validated in different countries, some psychometric properties (e.g. test-retest reliability) are to be tested.ObjectivesTo further assess CESQ psychometric properties and to validate its Portuguese translation.MethodsThe CESQ Portuguese translation was developed in collaboration with the author (Otto Wahl), using standard translation and back-translation procedures. The acceptability of items was assessed in pilot studies and discussed in groups also involving health professionals. The measure was then used in a convenience sample of 122 persons with severe mental illness. Assessments included test-retest reliability (n = 48). A factor analysis was also conducted.ResultsOverall, the CESQ translation proved acceptable and missing items were few, not compromising the analysis. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for test-retest reliability was 0.83 [95% CI 0.71–0.90] and Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency was 0.80 [95% CI 0.75–0.85]. In the principal component analysis, factor loadings confirmed the two originally reported domains: stigma and discrimination.ConclusionsThe CESQ Portuguese version demonstrated good validity and reliability, replicating research using the original version and adding to the documentation of its psychometric properties.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.

Development and psychometric properties of the Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS): a stigma-related behaviour measure

2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 263-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Evans-Lacko ◽  
D. Rose ◽  
K. Little ◽  
C. Flach ◽  
D. Rhydderch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Strong Consensus ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
International Experts ◽  
Intended Behaviour

Background.Although stigma in relation to mental health has been defined as including components of knowledge, attitudes and behaviour, no psychometrically tested instrument to assess behavioural discrimination at the population level has been developed. This paper presents details of the development and psychometric properties of the Reported and Intended Behaviour Scale (RIBS), an instrument based on the Star Social Distance Scale, to assess reported (past and current) and intended (future) behavioural discrimination among the general public against people with mental health problems.Methods.Three studies were carried out to evaluate psychometric properties of the RIBS (Study 1,n = 92; Study 2,n= 37; Study 3,n= 403). Adults aged 25–45 in socio-economic groups: B, C1 and C2 (middle-income groups) took part in development and testing of the RIBS.Results.Internal consistency and test–retest reliability is moderate/substantial. Strong consensus validity was found, as rated by service users/consumers and international experts in stigma research.Conclusions.Use of a behavioural outcome may be important to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions intended to reduce stigma and/or discrimination related to mental illness. The RIBS was found to be a brief, feasible and psychometrically robust measure for assessing mental health-related reported and intended behavioural discrimination.

scholarly journals French-Canadian Version of the Chronic Respiratory and of the St George's Respiratory Questionnaires: An Assessment of their Psychometric Properties in Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. 480-486 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Bourbeau ◽  
Francois Maltais ◽  
Michel Rouleau ◽  
Chantal Guímont
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Stable Disease ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Internal Consistency Reliability ◽  
Forced Expiratory Volume ◽  
Chronic Obstructive ◽  
French Canadian ◽  
Retest Reliability ◽  
Test Retest Reliability ◽  
High Test

BACKGROUND:French versions of the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) and the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) have largely been used in Canada, although the process by which they were translated remains unknown and the psychometric properties of these translated versions have not been assessed in a properly designed study.OBJECTIVE:To translate and evaluate the psychometric properties of the French-Canadian versions of the CRQ and the SGRQ.METHODS:The questionnaires were translated according to standardized guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation. Measurements were made at baseline and again after two weeks in 27 chronic obstructive pulomonary disease (COPD) patients known to have stable disease. Measurements were also taken pre- and post-treatment in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (33 patients) or in pulmonary rehabilitation (32 patients).RESULTS:The CRQ showed high test-retest reliability (the majority above 0.70), although it was slightly lower for the dyspnea dimension (0.58 to 0.65). The SGRQ also showed high test-retest reliability (above 0.80), although it was lower for the symptoms dimension (0.54 to 0.58). The internal consistency reliability coefficients ranged from 0.73 to 0.90 for the CRQ and above 0.80 for the SGRQ, except for the symptoms dimension. The Pearson's correlation coefficients were low (less than 0.30) between most of the translated questionnaire dimension scores and forced expiratory volume in 1 s, 6 min walking test and dyspnea measures. The correlation was generally high (greater than 0.50) between the two questionnaires and the 36-item short form health survey, and for those domains that measured the same construct. The changes in the total and subscale scores of the CRQ and the SGRQ (except for the symptoms domain) were all largely above the variability of the score in the stable disease group.CONCLUSION:The present study confirms that the French-Canadian translated versions of the CRQ and the SGRQ perform well with respect to their psychometric properties. They are both suitable for their intended purpose, ie, to detect change in health status in patients with COPD when assessing if a treatment is beneficial. However, the symptoms domain of the SGRQ cannot be used to assess acute change with respect to a given therapy.

scholarly journals The language, literacy and mental health profiles of adolescents in out-of-home care: An Australian sample

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Snow ◽  
Emina McLean ◽  
Margarita Frederico
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Home Care ◽  
Oral Language ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Health Problems ◽  
Mental Health Status ◽  
Language And Literacy ◽  
Out Of Home Care ◽  
The Average Range

Adolescents in the care of the state have complex developmental needs that include low academic attainment. The aim of this study was to describe the language and literacy profiles of adolescents (aged 13–19) in out-of-home care (‘looked after children’). Mental health status, biopsychosocial history, and education and employment histories were also documented. Twenty-six adolescents were assessed by a speech and language therapist. Ninety-two percent had oral language skills below the average range on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals: 4th edition, with 62% scoring two or more standard deviations below the mean. Ninety-two percent of participants scored below the average range on two or more subtests of the Test of Language Competence: Expanded edition. On the York Assessment of Reading Comprehension, 92% scored in the very low range and 65% were below-average on single-word reading. Fifty percent of participants reported a diagnosis/symptoms of depression and 54% reported a diagnosis/symptoms of anxiety. The correlation between oral language and literacy was modest but significant ( r = 0.502; p ⩽ 0.05); no significant correlations were found between oral language, literacy and mental health status, suggesting that mental health problems are a comorbidity rather than a correlate of language and literacy difficulties. Language and literacy difficulties are highly prevalent in this population. Language disorders are likely to be undiagnosed in the context of significant mental health problems, and disrupted schooling and accommodation. Speech-language therapy scope of practice needs to include out-of-home care populations in order to foster developmentally appropriate language and literacy skills that maximize school success, both academically and socially.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document