The Behavior Problems Inventory-Short Form for individuals with intellectual disabilities: part I: development and provisional clinical reference data
Middle Aged; Male; Sensitivity and Specificity; Multivariate Analysis; Aged; Young Adult; Child; Humans; Adult; Adolescent; Prevalence; Female; Child Preschool; Reference Values; Aged 80 and over; Aggression/psychology; Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior; Disorders/diagnosis/epidemiology/psychology; Intellectual Disability/diagnosis/epidemiology/psychology; Personality Inventory/standards/statistics & numerical data; Self-Injurious Behavior/diagnosis/epidemiology/psychology; Stereotypic Movement Disorder/diagnosis/epidemiology/psychology; behavioral problems; unspecified ID; tool development; scale development
BACKGROUND: The Behavior Problems Inventory-01 (BPI-01) is an informant-based behaviour rating instrument that was designed to assess maladaptive behaviours in individuals with intellectual disabilities (ID). Its items fall into one of three sub-scales: Self-injurious Behavior (14 items), Stereotyped Behavior (24 items), and Aggressive/Destructive Behavior (11 items). Each item is rated on a frequency scale (0 = never to 4 = hourly), and a severity scale (0 = no problem to 3 = severe problem). The BPI-01 has been successfully used in several studies and has shown acceptable to very good psychometric properties. One concern raised by some investigators was the large number of items on the BPI-01, which has reduced its user friendliness for certain applications. Furthermore, researchers and clinicians were often uncertain how to interpret their BPI-01 data without norms or a frame of reference. METHODS: The Behavior Problems Inventory-Short Form (BPI-S) was empirically developed, based on an aggregated archival data set of BPI-01 data from individuals with ID from nine locations in the USA, Wales, England, the Netherlands, and Romania (n = 1122). The BPI-S uses the same rating system and the same three sub-scales as the BPI-01, but has fewer items: Self-injurious Behavior (8 items), Stereotyped Behavior (12 items), and Aggressive/Destructive Behavior (10 items). Rating anchors for the severity scales of the Self-injurious Behavior and the Aggressive/Destructive Behavior sub-scales were added in an effort to enhance the objectivity of the ratings. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the BPI-S compared with the BPI-01 was high (0.92 to 0.99), and so were the correlations between the analogous BPI-01 and the BPI-S sub-scales (0.96 to 0.99). Means and standard deviations were generated for both BPI versions in a Sex-by-age matrix, and in a Sex-by-ID Level matrix. Combined sex ranges are also provided by age and level of ID. CONCLUSION: In summary, the BPI-S is a very useful alternative to the BPI-01, especially for research and evaluation purposes involving groups of individuals.
Rojahn J; Rowe E W; Sharber A C; Hastings R; Matson J L; Didden R; Kroes D B; Dumont E L
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
2012
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01507.x" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01507.x</a>
Crying out in pain-A systematic review into the validity of vocalization as an indicator for pain
Child; Humans; Aged; Aged 80 and over; Pain Measurement; Crying; Pain/diagnosis
BACKGROUND: Vocalization is often used to assess pain, sometimes combined with other behaviours such as facial expressions. Contrary to facial expressions, however, for vocalization, there is little evidence available on the association with pain. The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyse the association between vocalization and pain, to explore if vocalizations can be used as a "stand-alone" indicator for pain. METHODS: The search was performed according to the Prisma Guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. The following terms were used: "Pain Measurement," "Vocalization" and "Verbalization." The study population included verbal and non-verbal individuals, including older people and children. The search was performed in three different databases: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL. A total of 35 studies were selected for detailed investigation. Quality assessments were made using two grading systems: Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation system and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: An association between vocalization and pain was found in most studies, particularly when different types of vocalizations were included in the investigation. Different types of vocalization, but also different types of pain, shape this association. The association is observed within all groups of individuals, although age, amongst others, may have an influence on preferred type of vocalization. CONCLUSIONS: There is an association between vocalization and pain. However, vocalization as a "stand-alone" indicator for pain indicates only a limited aspect of this multifactorial phenomenon. Using vocalization as an indicator for pain may be more reliable if other pain indicators are also taken into account. SIGNIFICANCE: Vocalizations are frequently used in pain scales, although not yet thoroughly investigated as a "single indicator" for pain, like, e.g. facial expression. This review confirms the role of vocalizations in pain scales, and stresses that vocalizations might be more reliable if used in combination with other pain indicators.
Helmer LML; Weijenberg RAF; de Vries R; Achterberg WP; Lautenbacher S; Sampson EL; Lobbezoo F
European Journal of Pain
2020
Article information provided for research and reference use only. PedPalASCNET does not hold any rights over the resource listed here. All rights are retained by the journal listed under publisher and/or the creator(s).
<a href="http://doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1623" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">10.1002/ejp.1623</a>