论文部分内容阅读
目的 :分析痴呆心境评定量表 (DMAS)的信度和效度。方法 :3 0例符合CCMD -2 -R关于Alzheimer病或血管性痴呆诊断标准的病人 ,由临床医生是否存在抑郁症状判定为抑郁组 (16例 )和非抑郁组 (14例 )。 5位精神科医生参加评定 ,对 16例病人进行了联合评定 ,评定员之间一致性良好 ,ICC =0 87,F =13 5 44 ,P <0 0 1。 3 0例样本除接受DMAS评定外 ,同时接受汉密顿抑郁量表 (HAMD)、简易智力状态检查 (MMSE)、日常生活能力量表 (ADL)和大体痴呆评定量表 (GDS)的评定。结果 :抑郁组与非抑郁组的DMAS各单项分比较 ,共有 12个单项评分二组间有显著差异 (P <0 0 5或 <0 0 1)。单项分与剩余总分的相关系数 (rs)为 0 19～ 0 77,P均 <0 0 5或 <0 0 1,DMAS与HAMD的相关性良好 ,rs=0 68,P <0 0 1。因子分析结果 ,DMAS各项可归纳为 5个因子 ,分别为 :(1)情绪体验 (2 )焦虑 /抑郁 (3 )自我评价 (4 )活力缺乏 (5 )易激惹。项目的归类基本合理 ,具有临床可解释性 ,说明DMAS具有良好的结构效度。结论 :DMAS的信度与效度良好 ,项目设置适用于痴呆伴有抑郁的评价
Objective: To analyze the reliability and validity of dementia assessment scale (DMAS). Methods: Thirty patients with depression of CCMD-2R or Alzheimer’s disease or vascular dementia were selected as depression group (16 cases) and non-depression group (14 cases). Five psychiatrists took part in the assessment, and 16 patients were evaluated jointly with good agreement among assessors. ICC = 0 87, F = 13 5 44, P <0.01. Thirty dementia patients were assessed with DMAS, HAMD, MMSE, ADL and GDS. Results: Compared with DMAS scores of depression and non-depression groups, 12 individual scores were significantly different between the two groups (P <0.05 or <0.01). The correlation coefficient (rs) between the single item and the remaining total score was 0 19 ~ 0 77, P <0 05 or <0 0 1, DMAS had a good correlation with HAMD, rs = 0 68, P 0 01. Factor analysis results, DMAS can be grouped into five factors, namely: (1) emotional experience (2) anxiety / depression (3) self-evaluation (4) lack of activity (5) irritability. The classification of the project is basically reasonable, with clinical interpretability, indicating that DMAS has good structural validity. Conclusion: The reliability and validity of DMAS are good, and the project settings are suitable for the evaluation of dementia with depression