The brief scale for anxiety: a subdivision of the comprehensive psychopathological rating scale.

A rating scale suitable for recording anxious symptoms is described. It is a subdivision of the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale and comprises 10 items, all of which are rated on a 7 point scale. It is suitable for the rating of pathological anxiety alone or for anxiety occurring in the setting of other psychological or medical disorder.     

Comparison of the AMP system and the CPRS with regard to interrater reliability

The interrater reliability of the AMP system and the Comprehensive Psychiatric Rating Scale (CPRS) was compared in a sample of 30 hospitalized schizophrenic or depressive patients. The CPRS proved to have on average a slightly higher reliability on both the level of items and primary scales. The reliability of the secondary scales was nearly identical.     

A comparison between "Cronholm-Ottosson depression rating scale" and variables concerned with depressive symptomatology in "the comprehensive psychopathological rating scale--CPRS".

In a study concerning 40 patients with depressive disorders the Cronholm-Ottosson depression rating scale and items concerning symptomatology from the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale--CPRS were compared. The total scores scales showed a rather satisfactory correlation (rs - 0,77). When patients were divided into two groups with depressive syndromes of a psychotic and non-psychotic dimension respectively the total scores of the items from CPRS from CPRS differed significantly for the groups while the total scores for the Cronholm-Ottosson depression rating scale showed a less pronounced, statistically non-significant difference between the groups, probably reflecting a reduced validity for the latter scale.     

The comprehensive psychopathological rating scale (CPRS): communicability to, and inter-rater reliability among untrained raters.

Twenty-six, respectively twenty-three untrained Italian doctors participated in the rating of two patients with a preliminary Italian version of the CPRS. Despite an unfavourable setting, and some linguistic inaccuracies in the translation, a quite satisfactory degree of agreement was reached among the doctors. The Italian version of the CPRS has now been rewritten using a terminology more familiar to Italian psychiatrists.     

The international cooperative ataxia rating scale in Machado-Joseph disease. Comparison with the unified multiple system atrophy rating scale.

Our purpose was to evaluate and compare the international cooperative ataxia rating scale (ICARS) and the unified multiple system atrophy rating scale (UMSARS) in patients with Machado-Joseph disease (MJD). We assessed 52 consecutive subjects with MJD using each scale. Both scales had adequate internal consistency (alpha > 0.90), except for the oculomotor (OD) subscore (alpha = 0.08). Patients with dystonia had the highest scores in both scales, and symptoms other than ataxia clearly confounded the total ICARS score. There was a very strong correlation between the ICARS and UMSARS-II (motor function), and the correlations between the ICARS and UMSARS-I (r = 0.79) (history) and UMSARS-IV (r = 0.69) (disability) were also statistically significant. We found no significant changes in scores after a mean interval of 7.7 months, although there was after a mean interval of 13.3 months. We conclude that the total ICARS score is a reliable method for longitudinal evaluation of ataxia in MJD, but a disease specific scale should be developed.     

Comparison of DSM-III-R and childhood autism rating scale diagnoses of autism

The purpose of this study was to clarify the issue of whether DSM-III-R (American Psychological Association [APA], 1987) over-or underdiagnoses autism by comparing this diagnostic system to a well-established objective measure of diagnosis, the Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS). A secondary goal was to determine which of the 16 criteria are the best discriminators of autism. DSM-III-R, CARS, and clinical diagnoses of 138 consecutive admissions to a statewide program for the diagnosis and treatment of autistic and related communication-handicapped individuals (Division TEACCH in North Carolina) were compared. Results indicated a generally high degree of agreement on the diagnosis of autism using the three systems. Within this tratment-oriented program, the CARS and clinical ratings diagnosed a greater number of cases as autistic than did the DSM-III-R criteria, suggesting that DSM-III-R slightly underdiagnosed autism. The criteria that most strongly related to the diagnosis of autism regardless of the system were lack of awareness of others, abnormal social play, an impaired ability to make friends, abnormal nonverbal communication, stereotypic body movements, and restricted range of interests.     

Calibration of unified Parkinson's disease rating scale scores to Movement Disorder Society-unified Parkinson's disease rating scale scores

The aim of this study was to develop formulas to convert the UPDRS to Movement Disorder Society (MDS)-UPDRS scores. The MDS-UPDRS is a revision of the UPDRS with sound clinimetric properties. Reliable formulas to recalculate UPDRS scores into MDS-UPDRS equivalents are pivotal to the practical transition and definitive adoption of the MDS-UPDRS. UPDRS and MDS-UPDRS scores were collected on 875 PD patients. A developmental sample was used to regress UPDRS scores on corresponding MDS-UPDRS scores based on three H & Y groupings (I/II, III, and IV/V). Regression weighting factors and intercept terms provided formulas for UPDRS conversions to be tested in a validation sample. Concordance between the true MDS-UPDRS Part scores and those derived from the formulas was compared using Bland-Altman's plots and Lin's concordance coefficient (LCC). Significant concordance between UPDRS-estimated MDS-UPDRS scores was achieved for Parts II (Motor Experiences of Daily Living) (LCC = 0.93) and III (Motor Examination) (LCC = 0.97). The formulas resulted in mean differences between the true MDS-UPDRS and estimated MDS-UPDRS scores of less than 1 point for both Parts II and III. Concordance was not achieved for Parts I and IV (Non-motor Experiences of Daily Living and Complications of Therapy). Formulas allow archival UPDRS Parts II and III individual patient data to be accurately transferred to MDS-UPDRS scores. Because Part I collects data on much more extensive information than the UPDRS, and because Part IV is structured differently in the two versions, old ratings for these parts cannot be converted. ? 2012 Movement Disorder Society.     

The sensitivity of quality-of-life scale WHOQOL-100 to psychopathological measures in schizophrenia

We aimed to investigate the reliability and the clinical sensitivity of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-100) scale for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia because of its multilingual, multidimensional, and cross-cultural properties. Fifty-four stabilized outpatients with schizophrenia and 49 age-, sex-, and occupation-matched healthy control subjects were recruited. The scale showed high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.94). While there was no correlation between total scores of psychopathology measures (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale [BPRS], Scale for the assessment of Negative Symptoms [SANS], Scale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms [SAPS], and Clinical Global Impression [CGI]), significant negative correlations were obtained especially between subscales of the BPRS, SANS, SAPS, and QOL domains. Stepwise multiple regression analysis also revealed that the BPRS anxiety/depression and SANS anhedonia subcales were the predictor variables in five of six QOL domains in the schizophrenia group. The better quality-of-life scores of the mild group on physical and psychological domains indicate that the WHOQOL-100 could be used as an outcome measure in clinical studies. Thus, the WHOQOL-100 scale is a reliable, subjective quality-of-life scale for patients diagnosed with schizophrenia. The clinical sensitivity should also be assessed in large follow-up studies.     

Calibration of unified Parkinson's disease rating scale scores to Movement Disorder Society‐unified Parkinson's disease rating scale scores

The aim of this study was to develop formulas to convert the UPDRS to Movement Disorder Society (MDS)‐UPDRS scores. The MDS‐UPDRS is a revision of the UPDRS with sound clinimetric properties. Reliable formulas to recalculate UPDRS scores into MDS‐UPDRS equivalents are pivotal to the practical transition and definitive adoption of the MDS‐UPDRS. UPDRS and MDS‐UPDRS scores were collected on 875 PD patients. A developmental sample was used to regress UPDRS scores on corresponding MDS‐UPDRS scores based on three H & Y groupings (I/II, III, and IV/V). Regression weighting factors and intercept terms provided formulas for UPDRS conversions to be tested in a validation sample. Concordance between the true MDS‐UPDRS Part scores and those derived from the formulas was compared using Bland‐Altman's plots and Lin's concordance coefficient (LCC). Significant concordance between UPDRS‐estimated MDS‐UPDRS scores was achieved for Parts II (Motor Experiences of Daily Living) (LCC = 0.93) and III (Motor Examination) (LCC = 0.97). The formulas resulted in mean differences between the true MDS‐UPDRS and estimated MDS‐UPDRS scores of less than 1 point for both Parts II and III. Concordance was not achieved for Parts I and IV (Non‐motor Experiences of Daily Living and Complications of Therapy). Formulas allow archival UPDRS Parts II and III individual patient data to be accurately transferred to MDS‐UPDRS scores. Because Part I collects data on much more extensive information than the UPDRS, and because Part IV is structured differently in the two versions, old ratings for these parts cannot be converted. © 2012 Movement Disorder Society     

Examination of the retest reliability of the findings of the first psychopathological examination (AMP system)

80 inpatients were interviewed two times by the same rate during 24 h. Using Kappa, the retest reliability of the following parts of the psychopathological findings was determined: (1) aspects of the interview (median 0.54); (2) AMP symptoms (median 0.72); (3) AMP syndromes (median 0.79); (4) clinical syndromes (median 0.77), and (5) nosologic diagnoses (median 0.93). Based on structured rating of the psychopathological symptoms, a good retest reliability was found.     

Interchanging scores between clinical dementia rating scale and global deterioration scale

Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) scale and Global Deterioration Scale (GDS) are commonly used to measure the severity of dementia. However, no specific rules are available to convert the scores of CDR into those of GDS and vice versa. Using a semi-structured interview, two examiners independently rated CDR and GDS in 78 patients with dementia and 34 controls. Regression analysis showed a curvilinear relationship between CDR and GDS. This curve may provide a rule to interchange the scores of GDS and CDR (or Sum of Boxes of CDR).     

The comprehesive psychopathological rating scale--CPRS--in patients with schizophrenic syndromes. Inter-rater reliability and in relation to M?rtens' S-scale.

In the course of a multicenter controlled trial of the effects of neuroleptic drugs on patients with schizophrenic or paranoid syndromes a comparison was made between the Swedish symptom rating scale--M?rtens' S-scale especially designed for patients with schizophrenic syndromes--and a new rating scale--the Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale--CPRS. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient between the two scales was found to be 0,48 and as the inter-rater reliability for both scales was found to be quite satisfactory the validity of the scales is discussed. The CPRS scale was found to be easy to handle even for untrained doctors and in a separate study of inter-rater reliability where 5 doctors saw 16 patients a quite satisfactory reliability rk = 0,70--0.97, was found for 33 out of 39 items. In some items, espically those concerning different aspects of affective disturbances a lower inter-rater reliability was found but these items have been revised in later versions of the scale.     

限定刑事责任能力的应用

目的：探讨限定刑事责任能力评定量表（DCRRS）在广州地区责任能力3级评定中的应用。方法：采用DCRRS回顾性评定刑事责任能力鉴定504例,进一步检验该量表的信效度及其和专家鉴定结论的一致性。结果：DCRRS的分半信度为0.90,各条目之间及其与总量表分之间的相关均有统计学意义（r=0.11-0.91,P〈0.05）。据DCRRS的参考划界分分组,无、限定和完全责任能力3组间及两两间总量表分的差异均具有统计学意义（P〈0.001）。DCRRS评定和专家鉴定两种责任能力分级方法的结果一致性较好（Kappa值=0.71,P〈0.001）,建立判别函数,回代的判别正确率分别为96.2%和86.7%。结论：DCRRS在广州地区使用的信效度良好,可推广用于责任能力3级评定的辅助参考。