Development and initial validation of a dual-language english–spanish format for the arthritis impact measurement scales

Language, cultural, and educational barriers complicate efforts to validate health status questionnaires that have been translated into Spanish. To overcome these problems, a prototype dual-language format was developed for the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Validity testing with 72 patients diagnosed as having rheumatoid arthritis indicated high levels of test-retest reliability, item-to-scale internal consistency, and construct validity for both Anglo and Hispanic subjects. A technique for developing and pilot-testing a questionnaire written in a regional Spanish dialect is described. Linguistic considerations, questionnaire design, and other applications are discussed in light of the results obtained.     

Is the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 5th Edition a useful concussion assessment tool in head-injured patients presenting to the emergency department?

Objective

Concussion is a common ED complaint, but diagnosis is challenging as there are no validated objective measures. Use of concussion tools derived from sports medicine is common, but these tools are not well validated in ED settings. The aim of this study was to assess the ability of the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 5th Edition (SCAT5) to identify concussion in ED patients presenting following head injury.

Methods

We conducted a prospective observational study of head-injured adult patients presenting to ED between March and July 2021. ED diagnosis of concussion was used as the diagnostic standard, and we assessed the diagnostic performance of the SCAT5 test and its three subsections (Standardised Assessment of Concussion (SAC), Post-Concussion Symptom Scale (PCSS) and Modified Balance Error Scoring System (mBESS)) against this.

Results

Thirty-two head-injured participants were enrolled, 19 of whom had a discharge diagnosis of concussion, alongside 17 controls. Median time for SCAT5 testing was 21 (interquartile range 16–27) min. Fifteen (30.6%) participants were interrupted during testing. Area under the curve (AUC) (95% confidence interval) for the SAC, PCSS and mBESS were 0.51 (0.34–0.68), 0.92 (0.84–0.99) and 0.66 (0.47–0.85), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of sections were as follows: entire SCAT5 (100.0%, 20.0%), SAC (48.1%, 60.0%), PCSS (89.7%, 85.0%) and mBESS (83.3%, 58.8%). Using PCSS alone would have identified 17 of 19 concussions.

Conclusion

The SCAT5 test had a low specificity, was long and was frequently interrupted. We suggest it is not an ideal assessment to use in ED. The PCSS score performed well and was easy to complete. It may be useful as a standalone tool to simplify ED concussion identification.