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:...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Clinical rehabilitation 2017-09, Vol.31 (9), p.1226-1237
Hauptverfasser: Sattin, Davide, Lovaglio, Piergiorgio, Brenna, Greta, Covelli, Venusia, Rossi Sebastiano, Davide, Duran, Dunja, Minati, Ludovico, Giovannetti, Ambra Mara, Rosazza, Cristina, Bersano, Anna, Nigri, Anna, Ferraro, Stefania, Leonardi, Matilde
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1237
container_issue 9
container_start_page 1226
container_title Clinical rehabilitation
container_volume 31
creator Sattin, Davide
Lovaglio, Piergiorgio
Brenna, Greta
Covelli, Venusia
Rossi Sebastiano, Davide
Duran, Dunja
Minati, Ludovico
Giovannetti, Ambra Mara
Rosazza, Cristina
Bersano, Anna
Nigri, Anna
Ferraro, Stefania
Leonardi, Matilde
description 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0269215517694225
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1909221344</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0269215517694225</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1928324009</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-3451e48601b037adaa8f20449417f8b795ae5dfa8eb570e0fc2c6e4b25f42a753</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kUFrFTEUhYNY7Gt170oCbtyMTTLJZMZdeagVCoWq6yGT3NSUN5NnbubJ-zf-1GaYKlJwFTjnu-fmcgh5zdl7zrW-YKLpBFeK66aTQqhnZMOl1hVrdf2cbBa7WvxTcoZ4zxhrheQvyKloG6Y6XW_I70tq47g3yeRwAIp5dkcaJ2oQAXGEKdN9ihbcnACpmRwdIadgF3UPKYeiRk_zr0jRxhSmO4pHzDCu8g-g2zgaegs2HiAd6VdrdlDdwiEgOBoW8EPZWoJNcmt-dMGHYi55gC_JiTc7hFeP7zn5_unjt-1VdX3z-cv28rqydaNyVUvFQZaz-MBqbZwxrRdMyk5y7dtBd8qAct60MCjNgHkrbANyEMpLYbSqz8m7Nbcc9nMGzP0Y0MJuZyaIM_a8Y50QvJayoG-foPdxTlP5XaFEWwvJWFcotlI2RcQEvt-nMJp07Dnrl_b6p-2VkTePwfMwgvs78KeuAlQrgOYO_tn6v8AHjj2j9Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1928324009</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A comparative study on assessment procedures and metric properties of two scoring systems of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised items: standard and modified scores</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Sattin, Davide ; Lovaglio, Piergiorgio ; Brenna, Greta ; Covelli, Venusia ; Rossi Sebastiano, Davide ; Duran, Dunja ; Minati, Ludovico ; Giovannetti, Ambra Mara ; Rosazza, Cristina ; Bersano, Anna ; Nigri, Anna ; Ferraro, Stefania ; Leonardi, Matilde</creator><creatorcontrib>Sattin, Davide ; Lovaglio, Piergiorgio ; Brenna, Greta ; Covelli, Venusia ; Rossi Sebastiano, Davide ; Duran, Dunja ; Minati, Ludovico ; Giovannetti, Ambra Mara ; Rosazza, Cristina ; Bersano, Anna ; Nigri, Anna ; Ferraro, Stefania ; Leonardi, Matilde</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-2155</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1477-0873</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0269215517694225</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28605973</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Behavior ; Behavioral responses ; Codification ; Cognitive aspects ; Coma ; Coma - etiology ; Coma - physiopathology ; Coma - psychology ; Comparative studies ; Consciousness ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Evaluation ; Female ; Hospitalization ; Humans ; Injury Severity Score ; Male ; Medical diagnosis ; Middle Aged ; Psychometrics ; Recovery ; Recovery of Function ; ROC Curve ; Standard scores ; Unconsciousness</subject><ispartof>Clinical rehabilitation, 2017-09, Vol.31 (9), p.1226-1237</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2017</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-3451e48601b037adaa8f20449417f8b795ae5dfa8eb570e0fc2c6e4b25f42a753</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-3451e48601b037adaa8f20449417f8b795ae5dfa8eb570e0fc2c6e4b25f42a753</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0269215517694225$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269215517694225$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,30976,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28605973$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sattin, Davide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lovaglio, Piergiorgio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brenna, Greta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Covelli, Venusia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rossi Sebastiano, Davide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duran, Dunja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Minati, Ludovico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giovannetti, Ambra Mara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosazza, Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bersano, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nigri, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferraro, Stefania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leonardi, Matilde</creatorcontrib><title>A comparative study on assessment procedures and metric properties of two scoring systems of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised items: standard and modified scores</title><title>Clinical rehabilitation</title><addtitle>Clin Rehabil</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Behavioral responses</subject><subject>Codification</subject><subject>Cognitive aspects</subject><subject>Coma</subject><subject>Coma - etiology</subject><subject>Coma - physiopathology</subject><subject>Coma - psychology</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>Consciousness</subject><subject>Cross-Sectional Studies</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Hospitalization</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Injury Severity Score</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Psychometrics</subject><subject>Recovery</subject><subject>Recovery of Function</subject><subject>ROC Curve</subject><subject>Standard scores</subject><subject>Unconsciousness</subject><issn>0269-2155</issn><issn>1477-0873</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kUFrFTEUhYNY7Gt170oCbtyMTTLJZMZdeagVCoWq6yGT3NSUN5NnbubJ-zf-1GaYKlJwFTjnu-fmcgh5zdl7zrW-YKLpBFeK66aTQqhnZMOl1hVrdf2cbBa7WvxTcoZ4zxhrheQvyKloG6Y6XW_I70tq47g3yeRwAIp5dkcaJ2oQAXGEKdN9ihbcnACpmRwdIadgF3UPKYeiRk_zr0jRxhSmO4pHzDCu8g-g2zgaegs2HiAd6VdrdlDdwiEgOBoW8EPZWoJNcmt-dMGHYi55gC_JiTc7hFeP7zn5_unjt-1VdX3z-cv28rqydaNyVUvFQZaz-MBqbZwxrRdMyk5y7dtBd8qAct60MCjNgHkrbANyEMpLYbSqz8m7Nbcc9nMGzP0Y0MJuZyaIM_a8Y50QvJayoG-foPdxTlP5XaFEWwvJWFcotlI2RcQEvt-nMJp07Dnrl_b6p-2VkTePwfMwgvs78KeuAlQrgOYO_tn6v8AHjj2j9Q</recordid><startdate>201709</startdate><enddate>201709</enddate><creator>Sattin, Davide</creator><creator>Lovaglio, Piergiorgio</creator><creator>Brenna, Greta</creator><creator>Covelli, Venusia</creator><creator>Rossi Sebastiano, Davide</creator><creator>Duran, Dunja</creator><creator>Minati, Ludovico</creator><creator>Giovannetti, Ambra Mara</creator><creator>Rosazza, Cristina</creator><creator>Bersano, Anna</creator><creator>Nigri, Anna</creator><creator>Ferraro, Stefania</creator><creator>Leonardi, Matilde</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201709</creationdate><title>A comparative study on assessment procedures and metric properties of two scoring systems of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised items: standard and modified scores</title><author>Sattin, Davide ; Lovaglio, Piergiorgio ; Brenna, Greta ; Covelli, Venusia ; Rossi Sebastiano, Davide ; Duran, Dunja ; Minati, Ludovico ; Giovannetti, Ambra Mara ; Rosazza, Cristina ; Bersano, Anna ; Nigri, Anna ; Ferraro, Stefania ; Leonardi, Matilde</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c365t-3451e48601b037adaa8f20449417f8b795ae5dfa8eb570e0fc2c6e4b25f42a753</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Behavioral responses</topic><topic>Codification</topic><topic>Cognitive aspects</topic><topic>Coma</topic><topic>Coma - etiology</topic><topic>Coma - physiopathology</topic><topic>Coma - psychology</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>Consciousness</topic><topic>Cross-Sectional Studies</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Hospitalization</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Injury Severity Score</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Psychometrics</topic><topic>Recovery</topic><topic>Recovery of Function</topic><topic>ROC Curve</topic><topic>Standard scores</topic><topic>Unconsciousness</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sattin, Davide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lovaglio, Piergiorgio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brenna, Greta</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Covelli, Venusia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rossi Sebastiano, Davide</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duran, Dunja</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Minati, Ludovico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Giovannetti, Ambra Mara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosazza, Cristina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bersano, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nigri, Anna</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ferraro, Stefania</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Leonardi, Matilde</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical rehabilitation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sattin, Davide</au><au>Lovaglio, Piergiorgio</au><au>Brenna, Greta</au><au>Covelli, Venusia</au><au>Rossi Sebastiano, Davide</au><au>Duran, Dunja</au><au>Minati, Ludovico</au><au>Giovannetti, Ambra Mara</au><au>Rosazza, Cristina</au><au>Bersano, Anna</au><au>Nigri, Anna</au><au>Ferraro, Stefania</au><au>Leonardi, Matilde</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A comparative study on assessment procedures and metric properties of two scoring systems of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised items: standard and modified scores</atitle><jtitle>Clinical rehabilitation</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Rehabil</addtitle><date>2017-09</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1226</spage><epage>1237</epage><pages>1226-1237</pages><issn>0269-2155</issn><eissn>1477-0873</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>28605973</pmid><doi>10.1177/0269215517694225</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0269-2155
ispartof Clinical rehabilitation, 2017-09, Vol.31 (9), p.1226-1237
issn 0269-2155
1477-0873
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1909221344
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); SAGE Complete A-Z List; MEDLINE
subjects Behavior
Behavioral responses
Codification
Cognitive aspects
Coma
Coma - etiology
Coma - physiopathology
Coma - psychology
Comparative studies
Consciousness
Cross-Sectional Studies
Evaluation
Female
Hospitalization
Humans
Injury Severity Score
Male
Medical diagnosis
Middle Aged
Psychometrics
Recovery
Recovery of Function
ROC Curve
Standard scores
Unconsciousness
title A comparative study on assessment procedures and metric properties of two scoring systems of the Coma Recovery Scale-Revised items: standard and modified scores
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T19%3A21%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20comparative%20study%20on%20assessment%20procedures%20and%20metric%20properties%20of%20two%20scoring%20systems%20of%20the%20Coma%20Recovery%20Scale-Revised%20items:%20standard%20and%20modified%20scores&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20rehabilitation&rft.au=Sattin,%20Davide&rft.date=2017-09&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1226&rft.epage=1237&rft.pages=1226-1237&rft.issn=0269-2155&rft.eissn=1477-0873&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0269215517694225&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1928324009%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1928324009&rft_id=info:pmid/28605973&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0269215517694225&rfr_iscdi=true