Psychometric Properties and Utility of the Problem Severity Summary for Adults With Serious Mental Illness

Srebnik, Debra; Uehara, Edwina S.; Smukler, Michael; Russo, Joan; Comtois, Katherine Anne; Snowden, Mark

doi:10.1176/appi.ps.53.8.1010

Cited by 17 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The consumer movement has urged that mental health services should be more recovery-orientated and this notion is gradually being incorporated internationally into mental health policy (Allott, Loganathan & Fulford, 2002; Andresen, Caputi & Oades, 2006; Marshall, Crowe, Oades, Deane & Kavanagh, 2007; Ramon, Healy & Renouf, 2007). Moreover, the demand to demonstrate effectiveness of mental health services is increasing (Srebnik et al, 2002). One way to demonstrate effectiveness is through assessment and monitoring of change and by reviewing outcome.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch version of the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM)

Nieuwenhuizen

Wilrycx

Moradi³

et al. 2013

Int J Soc Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch version of the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM)

Nieuwenhuizen

Wilrycx

Moradi³

et al. 2013

Int J Soc Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…15,16 Based on previous studies, we set cutoffs a priori of ≥0.8 for strong, 0.60-0.79 for acceptable, 0.40-0.59 for moderate, and ≤0.39 for poor reliability. 12,13,17,18 The standard error of measurement (SEM) was calculated for each session as SEM = SD x [1-r] 1/2 where SD is the SD of the dataset and r is the interrater reliability coefficient. 13 The minimal detectable change (MDC) was calculated as MDC = 1.96 x 2 1/2 x SEM.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Validity of the Revised Transfer Assessment Instrument

Worobey

Zigler

Huzinec

et al. 2018

Topics in Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Proper transfer technique is associated with improved biomechanics and decreased pain and pathology. However, many users do not use proper technique, and appropriate assessment and training are needed to address these deficits. The transfer assessment instrument (TAI) 4.0 was designed to meet those needs and improve on past versions by removing the need for clinician training, shortening administration time, and simplifying question content. Evaluate the psychometric properties of the TAI 4.0. A convenience sample of full-time wheelchair users was scored on multiple transfers by four raters to assess interrater, intrarater, and test-retest reliability and concurrent validity of the TAI 4.0. Each user also was scored using a visual analog scale (VAS). For 44 participants, the mean TAI 4.0 and VAS across all transfers were 7.58 ± 1.12 and 7.44 ± 1.78, respectively, and scores were significantly correlated ( = 0.52-0.7). VAS scores were more strongly influenced by the flight/landing and body setup phases of the transfer. There were no significant associations between TAI 4.0 score and demographics. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranged from 0.80 to 0.85 for interrater reliability, 0.60 to 0.76 for intrarater reliability, and 0.55 to 0.76 for test-retest reliability. The minimum detectable change (MDC) for the total score ranged from 1.02 to 1.30. The TAI 4.0 provides reliable and valid quantitative assessment of an individual's transfer without the need for comprehensive training, as is the case with the TAI 3.0. The tool can be completed in 3 minutes (average) in a clinical setting with only a ruler and goniometer.

show abstract

Use of Psychiatric Advance Directives During Psychiatric Crisis Events

Srebnik

Russo

2008

Adm Policy Ment Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the first empirical data regarding the rates and predictors of using psychiatric advance directives. Directives were accessed in only 20% of crisis events for the 69 participants selected on the basis of frequent use of psychiatric emergency and hospital services. Directives were 10 times more likely to be accessed when a surrogate decision-maker was involved in the crisis event. Directives were also more likely to be accessed over time and for people who had repeated crises, fewer prior hospitalizations, no substance use, and no prior outpatient commitment orders. Creation of more directives to increase clinician and system familiarity and more consistent appointment of surrogate decision-makers could increase use of directives.

show abstract

Psychometric Properties and Utility of the Problem Severity Summary for Adults With Serious Mental Illness

Abstract: The PSS is a brief, easily administered instrument that shows psychometric promise for use in clinical contexts, such as treatment planning, concurrent review of care, and guidance for level-of-care decisions, as well as for quality management purposes.

Cited by 17 publications

References 24 publications

Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch version of the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM)

Psychometric evaluation of the Dutch version of the Mental Health Recovery Measure (MHRM)

Reliability and Validity of the Revised Transfer Assessment Instrument

Use of Psychiatric Advance Directives During Psychiatric Crisis Events

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About