Should symptoms be scaled for intensity, frequency, or both?
Should symptoms be scaled for intensity, frequency, or both?
复制标题
症状是否应该根据强度、频率或两者来衡量？
DOI：
10.1017/s1478951503030049
复制
发表时间：
2003
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
R. Harvey
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Chih;D. Cella;Susan Clarke;A. Heinemann;J. V. Von Roenn;R. Harvey
目的：本研究评估了两个5点症状自评量表的可比性：强度（从“完全没有”到“非常多”）和频率（从“没有时间”到“所有时间”）。检查慢性疾病治疗功能评估（FACIT）-疲劳13项量表中的问题。研究方法：161例患者（60例癌症，51例中风，50例HIV）的数据分别进行校准，以适应基于项目反应理论的评分量表模型（RSM）。RSM指定两个相邻响应类别之间的交集参数（步长阈值）和反映问题将被认可的概率的项目位置参数。沿着患者疲劳评分（“测量值”），检查步进阈值和阈值间范围的扩展。还检查了项目位置的差异项目功能。结果：强度和频率评定量表之间没有平均原始评分差异（37.2与36.4，p = n.s.）。强度与频率评分之间的高度相关性（r = 0.86，p <0.001）表明其基本等同。然而，频率阶跃阈值覆盖了更多的疲劳测量连续体，并且距离更近，因此降低了下限和上限效应。结果的意义：这两种缩放方法产生基本等同的疲劳估计值;很难证明评估两者的合理性。频率响应缩放可能是优选的，因为它提供了疲劳连续体的更全面的覆盖，包括对具有相对较少疲劳的人和一小群最疲劳的患者的稍微更好的区分。强度反应标度在显著疲劳的患者中提供了稍微更高的精度。
Objective: This study evaluated the comparability of two 5-point symptom self-report rating scales: Intensity (from “not at all” to “very much”) and Frequency (from “none of the time” to “all of the time”). Questions from the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue 13-item scale was examined. Methods: Data from 161 patients (60 cancer, 51 stroke, 50 HIV) were calibrated separately to fit an item response theory-based rating scale model (RSM). The RSM specifies intersection parameters (step thresholds) between two adjacent response categories and the item location parameter that reflects the probability that a problem will be endorsed. Along with patient fatigue scores (“measures”), the spread of the step thresholds and between-threshold ranges were examined. The item locations were also examined for differential item functioning. Results: There was no mean raw score difference between intensity and frequency rating scales (37.2 vs. 36.4, p = n.s.). The high correlation (r = .86, p < .001) between the intensity versus frequency scores indicated their essential equivalence. However, frequency step thresholds covered more of the fatigue measurement continuum and were more equidistant, and therefore reduced floor and ceiling effects. Significance of results: These two scaling methods produce essentially equivalent fatigue estimates; it is difficult to justify assessing both. The frequency response scaling may be preferable in that it provides fuller coverage of the fatigue continuum, including slightly better differentiation of people with relatively little fatigue, and a small group of the most fatigued patients. Intensity response scaling offers slightly more precision among the patients with significant fatigue.
施瓦茨癌症疲劳量表：测试可靠性和有效性。
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1998
期刊：
Oncology nursing forum.
影响因子：
--
作者：
Schwartz,AL
通讯作者：
Schwartz,AL