A comparative study on assessment procedures and metric properties of two scoring systems of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised items: standard and modified scores
Objective: The study compared the metric characteristics (discriminant capacity and factorial structure) of two different methods for scoring the items of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised and it analysed scale scores collected using the standard assessment procedure and a new proposed method. Design:...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical rehabilitation 2017-09, Vol.31 (9), p.1226-1237 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objective:
The study compared the metric characteristics (discriminant capacity and factorial structure) of two different methods for scoring the items of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised and it analysed scale scores collected using the standard assessment procedure and a new proposed method.
Design:
Cross sectional design/methodological study.
Setting:
Inpatient, neurological unit.
Participants:
A total of 153 patients with disorders of consciousness were consecutively enrolled between 2011 and 2013.
Intervention:
All patients were assessed with the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised using standard (rater 1) and inverted (rater 2) procedures.
Main outcome measures:
Coma Recovery Scale-Revised score, number of cognitive and reflex behaviours and diagnosis.
Results:
Regarding patient assessment, rater 1 using standard and rater 2 using inverted procedures obtained the same best scores for each subscale of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised for all patients, so no clinical (and statistical) difference was found between the two procedures. In 11 patients (7.7%), rater 2 noted that some Coma Recovery Scale-Revised codified behavioural responses were not found during assessment, although higher response categories were present. A total of 51 (36%) patients presented the same Coma Recovery Scale-Revised scores of 7 or 8 using a standard score, whereas no overlap was found using the modified score. Unidimensionality was confirmed for both score systems.
Conclusion:
The Coma Recovery Scale Modified Score showed a higher discriminant capacity than the standard score and a monofactorial structure was also supported. The inverted assessment procedure could be a useful evaluation method for the assessment of patients with disorder of consciousness diagnosis. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0269-2155 1477-0873 |
DOI: | 10.1177/0269215517694225 |