Cross-cultural validity and reliability testing of a standard psychiatric assessment instrument without a gold standard
Cross-cultural validity and reliability testing of a standard psychiatric assessment instrument without a gold standard
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/00005053-200104000-00005
复制
发表时间：
2001-04-01
影响因子：
1.9
通讯作者：
Bolton, P
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bolton, P
本研究的目的是在没有通常的“金标准”的情况下，评估标准精神病评估工具的跨文化效度和信度。“通常标准有效性测试需要与这样的标准进行比较-通常是另一种仪器或专业诊断。相反，当地的信息提供者确定了患有和没有“agahinda gakabije”（一种当地描述的悲伤综合征）的人，然后询问他们是否认为自己患有这种综合征，并使用霍普金斯症状检查表（DHSCL）的抑郁部分进行了采访。为了评估标准的有效性，受访者和受访者同意的存在或不存在agahinda gakabije的访谈进行了比较，抑郁症诊断使用DHSCL。我们还评估了结构效度（使用因素分析），内部信度（克朗巴赫的阿尔法），和重测信度使用的结果，从随后的社区为基础的调查，采用DHSCL。我们发现抑郁症和agahinda gakabije之间的关系与西方国家的抑郁症和悲伤之间的关系相似，这支持了效标效度。结构效度和内部信度良好（Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87）。基于DHSCL的量表的重测信度较低（0.67）。虽然没有取代通常的黄金标准来测试标准的有效性，这种方法可能会被证明是有用的，这些标准不可用。由于这包括大部分发展中国家，这可能会导致对迄今为止尚不可能的人群进行更准确的心理健康评估。
The objective of this study was to assess the cross-culture validity and reliability of a standard psychiatric assessment instrument without the usual "gold standards." Normally criterion validity testing requires comparison with such a standard-usually another instrument or a professional diagnosis. Instead local informants identified persons with and without "agahinda gakabije" (a locally described grief syndrome) who were then asked if they thought they had this syndrome and also interviewed using the depression section of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (DHSCL). To assess criterion validity, interviews where respondent and informant agreed on the presence or absence of agahinda gakabije were compared with depression diagnosis using the DHSCL. We also assessed construct validity (using factor analysis), internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha), and test-retest reliability using results from a subsequent community-based survey employing the DHSCL. We found a similar relationship between depression and agahinda gakabije as between depression and grief in western countries, which supports criterion validity. Construct validity and internal reliability were good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.87). Test-retest reliability of a DHSCL-based scale was less adequate (0.67). Although not replacing the usual gold standards for testing criterion validity, this approach may prove useful where these standards are unavailable. As this includes much of the developing world, this could result in more accurate mental health assessments among populations for whom this has hitherto not been possible.