Abstract
Abstract
Background
In behavioural assessment, information can be gathered from internally referenced self-reports or from proxy informants.
Aims
This study aimed to fine-tune a brief but reliable method for evaluating the proxy accuracy in cases where responses obtained from adult and older adults’ patient cannot be considered reliable.
Methods
We generated a set of items reflecting both overt and covert behaviours related to the basic instrumental activities of daily living. The psychometric properties of the content, factorial, and criterium validity of these items were then checked. The Proxy Reliability Questionnaire—ProRe was created. We tested the frequency of “I don’t know” responses as a measure of proxy reliability in a sample of healthy older adults and their proxies, and in a second sample of proxy respondents who answered questions about their parents.
Results
As expected, response precision was lower for items characterizing covert behaviours; items about covert compared to overt behaviours generated more “I don’t know” answers. Proxies provided less “I don’t know” responses when evaluating the parent, they claimed they knew better. Moreover, we tried to validate our approach using response confidence. Encouragingly, these results also showed differences in the expected direction in confidence between overt and covert behaviours.
Conclusions
The present study encourages clinicians/researchers to how well the proxy the patient know each other, the tendency of proxies to exhibit, for example, response bias when responding to questions about patients’ covert behaviours, and more importantly, the reliability of informants in providing a clinical assessment of neurocognitive diseases associated with aging.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Geriatrics and Gerontology,Aging
Reference146 articles.
1. Neveanu PP (1978) DicĠionar de psihologie, Bucureúti, Albatros, 123. DicĠionar de psihologie, Bucureúti, Humanitas, 155
2. Popescu G (2014) Human behavior, from psychology to a transdisciplinary insight. Procedia Soc 128:442–446
3. Goldstein G, Hersen M (2000) Handbook of psychological assessment. Elsevier
4. Seng E, Kerns RD, Heapy A (2014) Psychological and behavioral assessment. Practical management of pain. Mosby, USA, pp 243–256
5. Li M, Harris I, Lu ZK (2015) Differences in proxy-reported and patient-reported outcomes: assessing health and functional status among medicare beneficiaries. BMC Med Res Methodol 15:1–10
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献