Validity of the Chinese Version of the Allen Cognitive Level Screen Assessment for Individuals with Schizophrenia
The purpose of this study was to examine the concurrent, construct validity (using the known groups method) and ecological validity of the Chinese version of the Allen Cognitive Level Screen Assessment (CACLS). Sixty-one individuals with schizophrenia and 61 control subjects were recruited to underg...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | OTJR (Thorofare, N.J.) N.J.), 2007, Vol.27 (1), p.31-40 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 40 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 31 |
| container_title | OTJR (Thorofare, N.J.) |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Leung, Siu Bong Man, David W. K. |
| description | The purpose of this study was to examine the concurrent, construct validity (using the known groups method) and ecological validity of the Chinese version of the Allen Cognitive Level Screen Assessment (CACLS). Sixty-one individuals with schizophrenia and 61 control subjects were recruited to undergo the CACLS and the Chinese versions of the Mini-Mental State Examination (CMMSE) and Functional Needs Assessment (CFNA), respectively. The results suggested that the concurrent validity had initially been established because the CACLS score correlated moderately with the CMMSE scores (γ = 0.61; p < .01) and was highly correlated with the CFNA scores (γ = 0.71; p < .01). Based on the results of the Mann—Whitney U test (Z = −8.679; p < .001) and the analysis of covariance (F = 40.7; p < .001) to control possible confounding variables, the construct validity of the CACLS had initially been demonstrated. Suggestions for future studies of the CACLS are also made. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1177/153944920702700105 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_771790854</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_153944920702700105</sage_id><sourcerecordid>771790854</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-ddf67b2ae3277f939e9a8888fed10aa1022f80fa9e37628c464d80849c727db53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10UtLxDAQB_AiCurqF_AU9OCpmleb5LgUHwsLHnxcS7ad2Eg3WZN2Zf30RlZBFHNJmPn9h8Bk2QnBF4QIcUkKpjhXFAtMBcYEFzvZAVFM5pRJtpveCeSfYj87jPElkTJ1DrLXJ93b1g4b5A0aOkBVZx1EQE8QovXuuzzte3Co8s_ODnYNaA5r6NF9EyCVpzFCjEtwAzI-oJlr7dq2o-4jerNDl1hn3_2qC-CsPsr2TOrA8dc9yR6vrx6q23x-dzOrpvO8YYIPeduaUiyoBkaFMIopUFqmY6AlWGuCKTUSG62AiZLKhpe8lVhy1Qgq2kXBJtn5du4q-NcR4lAvbWyg77UDP8ZaCCIUlgVP8vSXfPFjcOlzNaWYYcypSOjsP0SkZIqVHNOk6FY1wccYwNSrYJc6bGqC689N1X83lUKX21DUz_Bj7P-JD2MakoQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1883936402</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Validity of the Chinese Version of the Allen Cognitive Level Screen Assessment for Individuals with Schizophrenia</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Leung, Siu Bong ; Man, David W. K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Leung, Siu Bong ; Man, David W. K.</creatorcontrib><description>The purpose of this study was to examine the concurrent, construct validity (using the known groups method) and ecological validity of the Chinese version of the Allen Cognitive Level Screen Assessment (CACLS). Sixty-one individuals with schizophrenia and 61 control subjects were recruited to undergo the CACLS and the Chinese versions of the Mini-Mental State Examination (CMMSE) and Functional Needs Assessment (CFNA), respectively. The results suggested that the concurrent validity had initially been established because the CACLS score correlated moderately with the CMMSE scores (γ = 0.61; p < .01) and was highly correlated with the CFNA scores (γ = 0.71; p < .01). Based on the results of the Mann—Whitney U test (Z = −8.679; p < .001) and the analysis of covariance (F = 40.7; p < .001) to control possible confounding variables, the construct validity of the CACLS had initially been demonstrated. Suggestions for future studies of the CACLS are also made.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1539-4492</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1938-2383</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/153944920702700105</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adults ; Analysis of covariance ; Behavior ; Brain ; Caregivers ; Cognition & reasoning ; Cognitive ability ; Construct Validity ; Correlation analysis ; Covariance ; Cultural Relevance ; Data collection ; Ethnic Groups ; Executive Function ; Inplant Programs ; Intellectual Disability ; Mental disorders ; Needs Assessment ; Occupational therapy ; Patients ; Predictive Validity ; Psychiatry ; Schizophrenia ; Screening Tests ; Social research ; Statistical Analysis ; Task Analysis ; Validation studies ; Validity ; Withdrawal (Psychology)</subject><ispartof>OTJR (Thorofare, N.J.), 2007, Vol.27 (1), p.31-40</ispartof><rights>2007 American Occupational Therapy Foundation</rights><rights>Copyright SLACK INCORPORATED Winter 2007</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-ddf67b2ae3277f939e9a8888fed10aa1022f80fa9e37628c464d80849c727db53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-ddf67b2ae3277f939e9a8888fed10aa1022f80fa9e37628c464d80849c727db53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/153944920702700105$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/153944920702700105$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4010,21798,27900,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Leung, Siu Bong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Man, David W. K.</creatorcontrib><title>Validity of the Chinese Version of the Allen Cognitive Level Screen Assessment for Individuals with Schizophrenia</title><title>OTJR (Thorofare, N.J.)</title><description>The purpose of this study was to examine the concurrent, construct validity (using the known groups method) and ecological validity of the Chinese version of the Allen Cognitive Level Screen Assessment (CACLS). Sixty-one individuals with schizophrenia and 61 control subjects were recruited to undergo the CACLS and the Chinese versions of the Mini-Mental State Examination (CMMSE) and Functional Needs Assessment (CFNA), respectively. The results suggested that the concurrent validity had initially been established because the CACLS score correlated moderately with the CMMSE scores (γ = 0.61; p < .01) and was highly correlated with the CFNA scores (γ = 0.71; p < .01). Based on the results of the Mann—Whitney U test (Z = −8.679; p < .001) and the analysis of covariance (F = 40.7; p < .001) to control possible confounding variables, the construct validity of the CACLS had initially been demonstrated. Suggestions for future studies of the CACLS are also made.</description><subject>Adults</subject><subject>Analysis of covariance</subject><subject>Behavior</subject><subject>Brain</subject><subject>Caregivers</subject><subject>Cognition & reasoning</subject><subject>Cognitive ability</subject><subject>Construct Validity</subject><subject>Correlation analysis</subject><subject>Covariance</subject><subject>Cultural Relevance</subject><subject>Data collection</subject><subject>Ethnic Groups</subject><subject>Executive Function</subject><subject>Inplant Programs</subject><subject>Intellectual Disability</subject><subject>Mental disorders</subject><subject>Needs Assessment</subject><subject>Occupational therapy</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Predictive Validity</subject><subject>Psychiatry</subject><subject>Schizophrenia</subject><subject>Screening Tests</subject><subject>Social research</subject><subject>Statistical Analysis</subject><subject>Task Analysis</subject><subject>Validation studies</subject><subject>Validity</subject><subject>Withdrawal (Psychology)</subject><issn>1539-4492</issn><issn>1938-2383</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp10UtLxDAQB_AiCurqF_AU9OCpmleb5LgUHwsLHnxcS7ad2Eg3WZN2Zf30RlZBFHNJmPn9h8Bk2QnBF4QIcUkKpjhXFAtMBcYEFzvZAVFM5pRJtpveCeSfYj87jPElkTJ1DrLXJ93b1g4b5A0aOkBVZx1EQE8QovXuuzzte3Co8s_ODnYNaA5r6NF9EyCVpzFCjEtwAzI-oJlr7dq2o-4jerNDl1hn3_2qC-CsPsr2TOrA8dc9yR6vrx6q23x-dzOrpvO8YYIPeduaUiyoBkaFMIopUFqmY6AlWGuCKTUSG62AiZLKhpe8lVhy1Qgq2kXBJtn5du4q-NcR4lAvbWyg77UDP8ZaCCIUlgVP8vSXfPFjcOlzNaWYYcypSOjsP0SkZIqVHNOk6FY1wccYwNSrYJc6bGqC689N1X83lUKX21DUz_Bj7P-JD2MakoQ</recordid><startdate>2007</startdate><enddate>2007</enddate><creator>Leung, Siu Bong</creator><creator>Man, David W. K.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2007</creationdate><title>Validity of the Chinese Version of the Allen Cognitive Level Screen Assessment for Individuals with Schizophrenia</title><author>Leung, Siu Bong ; Man, David W. K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c374t-ddf67b2ae3277f939e9a8888fed10aa1022f80fa9e37628c464d80849c727db53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Adults</topic><topic>Analysis of covariance</topic><topic>Behavior</topic><topic>Brain</topic><topic>Caregivers</topic><topic>Cognition & reasoning</topic><topic>Cognitive ability</topic><topic>Construct Validity</topic><topic>Correlation analysis</topic><topic>Covariance</topic><topic>Cultural Relevance</topic><topic>Data collection</topic><topic>Ethnic Groups</topic><topic>Executive Function</topic><topic>Inplant Programs</topic><topic>Intellectual Disability</topic><topic>Mental disorders</topic><topic>Needs Assessment</topic><topic>Occupational therapy</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Predictive Validity</topic><topic>Psychiatry</topic><topic>Schizophrenia</topic><topic>Screening Tests</topic><topic>Social research</topic><topic>Statistical Analysis</topic><topic>Task Analysis</topic><topic>Validation studies</topic><topic>Validity</topic><topic>Withdrawal (Psychology)</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Leung, Siu Bong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Man, David W. K.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health & Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>OTJR (Thorofare, N.J.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Leung, Siu Bong</au><au>Man, David W. K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Validity of the Chinese Version of the Allen Cognitive Level Screen Assessment for Individuals with Schizophrenia</atitle><jtitle>OTJR (Thorofare, N.J.)</jtitle><date>2007</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>31</spage><epage>40</epage><pages>31-40</pages><issn>1539-4492</issn><eissn>1938-2383</eissn><abstract>The purpose of this study was to examine the concurrent, construct validity (using the known groups method) and ecological validity of the Chinese version of the Allen Cognitive Level Screen Assessment (CACLS). Sixty-one individuals with schizophrenia and 61 control subjects were recruited to undergo the CACLS and the Chinese versions of the Mini-Mental State Examination (CMMSE) and Functional Needs Assessment (CFNA), respectively. The results suggested that the concurrent validity had initially been established because the CACLS score correlated moderately with the CMMSE scores (γ = 0.61; p < .01) and was highly correlated with the CFNA scores (γ = 0.71; p < .01). Based on the results of the Mann—Whitney U test (Z = −8.679; p < .001) and the analysis of covariance (F = 40.7; p < .001) to control possible confounding variables, the construct validity of the CACLS had initially been demonstrated. Suggestions for future studies of the CACLS are also made.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/153944920702700105</doi><tpages>10</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1539-4492 |
| ispartof | OTJR (Thorofare, N.J.), 2007, Vol.27 (1), p.31-40 |
| issn | 1539-4492 1938-2383 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_771790854 |
| source | SAGE Complete |
| subjects | Adults Analysis of covariance Behavior Brain Caregivers Cognition & reasoning Cognitive ability Construct Validity Correlation analysis Covariance Cultural Relevance Data collection Ethnic Groups Executive Function Inplant Programs Intellectual Disability Mental disorders Needs Assessment Occupational therapy Patients Predictive Validity Psychiatry Schizophrenia Screening Tests Social research Statistical Analysis Task Analysis Validation studies Validity Withdrawal (Psychology) |
| title | Validity of the Chinese Version of the Allen Cognitive Level Screen Assessment for Individuals with Schizophrenia |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-21T22%3A09%3A01IST&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=Validity%20of%20the%20Chinese%20Version%20of%20the%20Allen%20Cognitive%20Level%20Screen%20Assessment%20for%20Individuals%20with%20Schizophrenia&rft.jtitle=OTJR%20(Thorofare,%20N.J.)&rft.au=Leung,%20Siu%20Bong&rft.date=2007&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=31&rft.epage=40&rft.pages=31-40&rft.issn=1539-4492&rft.eissn=1938-2383&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/153944920702700105&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E771790854%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=1883936402&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_153944920702700105&rfr_iscdi=true |