Journal of intellectual disability research : JIDR · 2024
Development and evaluation of the Trauma Screener-Intellectual Disability: a post-traumatic stress disorder screening tool for adults with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Versluis A, Schuengel C, Mevissen L, de Jongh A, Didden R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of the adult self-report and proxy version of the Trauma Screener-Intellectual Disability (TS-ID) in adults with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning (MID-BIF). An optimal cut-off value was determined for the ratio of specificity to sensitivity for predicting the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
METHODS: The TS-ID was adapted from a Dutch Child and Adolescent Trauma Screener, for use with adults with MID-BIF. Outcomes based on the TS-ID were compared with the presence of PTSD, as classified using the Diagnostic Interview Trauma and Stressors-Intellectual Disability (Mevissen et al. 2018). The TS-ID adult version was administered to 97 participants with MID-BIF who lived in supported housing, whereas the TS-ID proxy version was administered to 92 family members or professional caregivers.
RESULTS: The TS-ID adult version showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .94) and excellent validity (AUC = .94) for distinguishing PTSD in adults with MID-BIF. Optimal specificity and sensitivity was found at a cut-off score of 18. Although the TS-ID proxy version demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .93), it showed no validity in statistically distinguishing PTSD in adults with MID-BIF.
CONCLUSIONS: The TS-ID showed favourable psychometric qualities as a screening instrument of PTSD in the case for people with MID-BIF.
METHODS: The TS-ID was adapted from a Dutch Child and Adolescent Trauma Screener, for use with adults with MID-BIF. Outcomes based on the TS-ID were compared with the presence of PTSD, as classified using the Diagnostic Interview Trauma and Stressors-Intellectual Disability (Mevissen et al. 2018). The TS-ID adult version was administered to 97 participants with MID-BIF who lived in supported housing, whereas the TS-ID proxy version was administered to 92 family members or professional caregivers.
RESULTS: The TS-ID adult version showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .94) and excellent validity (AUC = .94) for distinguishing PTSD in adults with MID-BIF. Optimal specificity and sensitivity was found at a cut-off score of 18. Although the TS-ID proxy version demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α = .93), it showed no validity in statistically distinguishing PTSD in adults with MID-BIF.
CONCLUSIONS: The TS-ID showed favourable psychometric qualities as a screening instrument of PTSD in the case for people with MID-BIF.