Comparisons of rating scales shows a good reliability. Supporting data
are included in articles below.
Results from search of PubMed at the National Library of Medicine of
the National Institutes of Health:
http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed :
Search terms:
Manchester scale reliability schizophrenia
Clicking on Related Articles to find find more citations.
Studies:
Psychol Med 1999 Jul;29(4):879-89
Scales to measure dimensions of hallucinations and delusions: the
psychotic
symptom rating scales (PSYRATS).
Haddock G, McCarron J, Tarrier N, Faragher EB.
Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Manchester,
Withington
Hospital.
BACKGROUND: Scales to measure the severity of different dimensions of
auditory
hallucinations and delusions are few. Biochemical and psychological
treatments
target dimensions of symptoms and valid and reliable measures are
necessary to
measure these. METHOD: The inter-rater reliability and validity of the
Psychotic
Symptom Rating Scales (PSYRATS: auditory hallucination subscale and
delusions
subscale), which measure several dimensions of auditory hallucinations
and
delusions were examined in this study. RESULTS: The two scales were
found to
have excellent inter-rater reliability. Their validity as compared
with the KGV
scale (Krawiecka et al. 1977) was explored. CONCLUSIONS: It is
concluded that
the PSYRATS are useful assessment instruments and can complement
existing
measures.
Acta Psychiatr Scand 1986 Dec;74(6):563-8
Comparison between the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale and the
Manchester Scale
for the rating of schizophrenic symptoms.
Manchanda R, Saupe R, Hirsch SR.
A reliability study was carried out to compare the short Manchester
Scale (MS)
to the longer Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), to see if similar
items
scored the same aspect of pathology and to find the sources of error.
The raters
were a psychiatrist and a psychologist cum medical student; they had
recently
arrived in Britain, came from different cultures and had not used the
scale
previously. Comparisons between the scales were made by interviewing
the
patients separately and together using either one or both scales. The
items on
the MS showed a higher interrater reliability as compared to the BPRS,
both with
independent and simultaneous ratings. Items based on observation only
correlated
poorly as compared to items based on verbal report. Lower
between-scale
correlations for delusions and affect were observed even where the
same rater
used the two scales, suggesting that the scales have different
meanings for
these items. The MS is a suitable alternative to the BPRS for
quantifying
schizophrenic symptoms.
Acta Psychiatr Scand 1990 Feb;81(2):108-13
Erratum in:
Acta Psychiatr Scand 1990 Aug;82(2):188
Psychometric properties of the Manchester Scale.
Jackson HJ, Burgess PM, Minas IH, Joshua SD.
NH & MRC Schizophrenia Research Unit, Royal Park Hospital, Melbourne,
Australia.
This article reports a preliminary investigation of the psychometric
properties
of the Manchester Scale (MS). Fifty-three patients were assessed on
the
instrument, 33 at time 1 (7-10 days after admission) and 53 at time 2
(during
the week prior to discharge). Interrater reliabilities were generally
good at
time 2. The factor analyses conducted on the 8 MS items at times 1 and
2 suggest
that MS contains a heterogeneous group of items: only the MS negative
symptoms
were related to one another. The MS positive and negative symptoms
were strongly
correlated with their counterpart items on the Schedules for the
Assessment of
Positive Symptoms and Negative Symptoms, suggesting that the MS items
have good
concurrent validity.
Psychopathology 2000 Sep-Oct;33(5):259-64
Correlates of symptom dimensions in schizophrenia obtained with the
Spanish
version of the Manchester scale.
Tabares R, Sanjuan J, Gomez-Beneyto M, Leal C.
Teaching Unit of Psychiatry and Psychological Medicine, Department of
Medicine,
University of Valencia, Spain. Rafael.Tabares@uv.es
In the last decade, a significant number of studies have been
published which
suggest a multifactorial psychopathological structure in
schizophrenia.
Seventy-eight acute and chronic schizophrenic patients diagnosed in
accordance
with DSM-III-R criteria were studied with the Manchester Scale,
Premorbid
Adjustment Scale, Family History-RDC Interview, Digit Span,
Mini-Mental State
and computerized tomography (CT). A factorial analysis of the symptoms
as
recorded with the Spanish version of the Manchester Scale was carried
out. Three
factors ('positive', 'negative' and 'disorganization') accounted for
79% of the
total variance. Poor premorbid adjustment was associated with high
scores for
the 'positive' dimension. The 'disorganization' dimension was
significantly
associated with lower scores in the Mini-Mental and attention test
than the
rest. However, CT did not differentiate between these symptom
dimensions. This
study of a sample of mostly outpatients corroborates the hypothesis of
three
clinical dimensions in schizophrenia. Copyright 2000 S. Karger AG,
Basel.
Psychol Med 1999 Jul;29(4):879-89
Scales to measure dimensions of hallucinations and delusions: the
psychotic
symptom rating scales (PSYRATS).
Haddock G, McCarron J, Tarrier N, Faragher EB.
Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Manchester,
Withington
Hospital.
BACKGROUND: Scales to measure the severity of different dimensions of
auditory
hallucinations and delusions are few. Biochemical and psychological
treatments
target dimensions of symptoms and valid and reliable measures are
necessary to
measure these. METHOD: The inter-rater reliability and validity of the
Psychotic
Symptom Rating Scales (PSYRATS: auditory hallucination subscale and
delusions
subscale), which measure several dimensions of auditory hallucinations
and
delusions were examined in this study. RESULTS: The two scales were
found to
have excellent inter-rater reliability. Their validity as compared
with the KGV
scale (Krawiecka et al. 1977) was explored. CONCLUSIONS: It is
concluded that
the PSYRATS are useful assessment instruments and can complement
existing
measures.
Acta Psychiatr Scand 1999 Feb;99(2):141-7
Criteria defining refractory schizophrenia.
Hori A, Tsunashima K, Takekawa Y, Ishihara I, Terada T, Uno M.
Department of Psychiatry, National Center Hospital for Mental, Nervous
and
Muscular Disorders, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry,
Tokyo, Japan.
To date there has been no agreement with regard to the criteria that
define
refractory schizophrenia. In this study, we intended to clarify the
criteria
which psychiatrists use to judge schizophrenic patients as being
refractory in
Japan. Based on 258 schizophrenic in-patients (ICD-10) and their
likelihood of
discharge, level of psychosocial functioning, mental state and use of
medication, the common features of patients who are viewed as
non-dischargeable
because of their severe mental state, compared to those of
dischargeable
patients, were extracted and used as the criteria. The criteria
proposed
necessitate (i) diagnosis of schizophrenia by standard operational
criteria,
(ii) continuous hospitalization for at least the past 2 years, (iii) a
level of
psychosocial functioning of < or = 40 as measured by the Global
Assessment
Scale, and (iv) an intensity score of 'marked' or 'severe' on at least
three of
the six Manchester Scale items (flattened affect, psychomotor
retardation,
delusions, hallucinations, incoherence of speech and poverty of
speech).
Schizophr Res 1999 May 25;37(2):165-76
Four behavioural syndromes of schizophrenia: a replication in a second
inner-London epidemiological sample.
Curson DA, Duke PJ, Harvey CA, Pantelis C, Barnes TR.
The Roehampton Priory Hospital, London, UK.
In a previous large epidemiological survey of patients with strictly
defined
schizophrenia in the London borough of Camden, we extracted four
behavioural
syndromes (Social withdrawal, Thought disturbance, Anti-social
behaviour and
Depressed behaviour) by factor analysis of MRC Social Behaviour
Schedule (SBS)
data. These syndromes had significant differential relationships to
symptoms
assessed using the Manchester Scale (MS), symptom-derived syndromes,
and social
functioning variables. A second inner-London epidemiological survey of
schizophrenia in South Westminster using identical methodology found
the same
four behavioural syndromes with identical core component items. The
same four
behavioural syndromes were extracted, whether applying strict Feighner
diagnostic criteria (n=112) or broader DSM-III-R criteria (n=198). The
four
syndromes extracted from the Feighner positive sample showed
relationships to
symptoms and social functioning variables similar to those found in
the original
Camden study. However, the symptom-derived factors were not the same
and did not
conform to the three recognised symptom-based syndromes of
schizophrenia. This
successful replication suggests that assessment of the four
behavioural
syndromes of schizophrenia offers a different perspective on
disability and a
potentially relevant measure in clinical practice, clinical trials and
studies
of the neuropsychology and pathophysiology of schizophrenia.
Similar:
Br J Psychiatry 1999 Mar;174:243-8
Comment in:
Br J Psychiatry. 2000 Jul;177:85.
Diagnostic significance of Schneider's first-rank symptoms in
schizophrenia.
Comparative study between schizophrenic and non-schizophrenic
psychotic
disorders.
Peralta V, Cuesta MJ.
Psychiatric Unit, Virgen del Camino Hospital, Pamplona, Spain.
victor.peralta.martin@cfnavarra.es
BACKGROUND: Despite the lack of consistent empirical support, modern
diagnostic
criteria of schizophrenia give particular emphasis to Schneider's
first-rank
symptoms (FRSs). AIMS: To examine the diagnostic significance of FRSs
for
schizophrenia by trying to overcome the limitations of previous
studies.
METHODS: This study examined the diagnostic accuracy of FRSs for
schizophrenia
in 660 in-patients with the full spectrum of functional psychotic
disorders.
Schizophrenia was diagnosed according to three criteria: DSM-III-R
broad,
DSM-III-R narrow and Feighner, the latter being considered as the gold
standard
because it does not give particular emphasis of FRSs. RESULTS: FRSs
were highly
prevalent in both schizophrenia and non-schizophrenic psychoses. The
likelihood
ratios (and 95% CI) of one or more FRSs for Feighner, DSM-III-R narrow
and
DSM-III-R broad schizophrenia were 1.06 (0.94-1.20), 1.23 (1.09-1.39)
and 1.73
(1.44-2.08), respectively. These data indicate that FRSs do not
significantly
increase the likelihood of having schizophrenia. CONCLUSIONS: FRSs are
not
useful in differentiating schizophrenia from other psychotic
disorders.
Diagnostic systems for schizophrenia that are heavily based on these
symptoms
may arise from a tautological definition of the disorder.
Br J Psychiatry 2000 Mar;176:249-52
Unpublished rating scales: a major source of bias in randomised
controlled
trials of treatments for schizophrenia.
Marshall M, Lockwood A, Bradley C, Adams C, Joy C, Fenton M.
University of Manchester, Department of Psychiatry, Royal Preston
Hospital,
Preston.
BACKGROUND: A recent review suggested an association between using
unpublished
scales in clinical trials and finding significant results. AIMS: To
determine
whether such an association existed in schizophrenia trials. METHOD:
Three
hundred trials were randomly selected from the Cochrane Schizophrenia
Group's
Register. All comparisons between treatment groups and control groups
using
rating scales were identified. The publication status of each scale
was
determined and claims of a significant treatment effect were recorded.
RESULTS:
Trials were more likely to report that a treatment was superior to
control when
an unpublished scale was used to make the comparison (relative risk
1.37 (95% CI
1.12-1.68)). This effect increased when a 'gold-standard' definition
of
treatment superiority was applied (RR 1.94 (95% CI 1.35-2.79)). In
non-pharmacological trials, one-third of 'gold-standard' claims of
treatment
superiority would not have been made if published scales had been
used.
CONCLUSIONS: Unpublished scales are a source of bias in schizophrenia
trials.
Associated:
J Clin Pharm Ther 1999 Dec;24(6):433-43
Measuring mania and critical appraisal of rating scales.
Poolsup N, Li Wan Po A, Oyebode F.
Centre for Evidence-Based Pharmacotherapy, Aston University,
Birmingham, UK.
BACKGROUND: In clinical trials of acute mania, a number of measures
have been
used to assess the severity of illness and its response to treatment.
Rating
instruments need to be validated in order for a clinical study to
provide
reliable and meaningful estimates of treatment effects. Objective: To
critically
assess rating scales used in measuring mania. Method: A systematic
search of the
literature, retrieval of reports of clinical trials of drugs used in
mania and
the rating scales and a critical and systematic appraisal of their
quality.
RESULTS: Eight symptom-rating scales were identified. The Mania Rating
Scale
(MRS) was the most commonly used for assessing treatment response. Two
more
recently developed scales are the Manchester Nurse Rating Scale for
Mania
(MNRS-M) and the Clinician-Administered Rating Scale for Mania
(CARS-M). The
latter appears well validated but its in-use reliability needs to be
explored
further. The translation of observed changes in instrumental ratings
into
clinically meaningful change has to be established further. In
particular, the
relative weighting to be attached to the individual items needs
further study.
The advantage of the MRS is that there is a relatively extensive
database of
studies based on it and this will no doubt ensure that it remains a
gold
standard for the foreseeable future. CONCLUSION: Useful rating scales
are
available for measuring mania but further cross-validation and
validation
against clinically meaningful global changes are required.
hlabadie-ga |
