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!
|
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 & 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 & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & 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 |