SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “SCALE”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

A clinical and SEM evaluation of the efficiency of sofscale gel and hand scaling and hand scaling alone.

The purpose of this study is to compose between hand scaling with abd without the calculus solvent gel (sofscale) and ultrasonic instrumentation at clinical and SEM level. 30 patients belonging to the age group of 17-50 year were selected. Patients selected were subjected to three different scaling modalities namely hand scaling (control), hand scaling using sofscale (Experimental quadrant A) and ultrasonic scaling (Experimental quadrant B), in three different quadrants. Case report forms were used to document the tooth sensitivity, soft tissue pain after scaling, patient preference of instrumentation, ease of calculus removal, patient comfort, soft tissue irritation, time taken for scaling, Bleeding while scaling, pre and post operative sulcus bleeding index. In addition to the clinical criteria, the teeth treated were extracted and evaluated using the scanning electron microscope to show potential effects on cemntal surfaces. No difference in tooth sensitivity was appreciated between control and experimental quadrant A. There was a higher degree of tooth sensitivity when treated with ultrasonic. Patients in control group appreciated a higher degree of soft tissue pain. Hand scaling using softscale produced a lesser amount of pain and treatment with ultrasoincs was the least painful. Most of the patients preferred ultrasonic scaling (70%) Calculus removal was easier. Hand scaling using sofscale gel results in more patient comfort when compared to hand scaling alone. There was no significant difference in patient comfort between handscaling using sofscale and ultrasonic scaling. The percentage of reduction of sulcus bleeding index showed no difference between the 3 scaling modalities SEM evaluation revealed that there was no significant difference the 3 scaling modalities in relation to residual calculus, cleaning efficiency and damage to the root surface. This study concluded that treatment with sofscale gel appears to be safe and effective method for removal calculus as this did not damage cemental surfaces, nor did it cause any damage to soft tissue. "Your tratar is your calcified hate. Not only the microflora in your oral cavity but also your muddled thoughts, your obstinate squinting backward, the way you regree when you mean to progress, in other words, the tendency of your diseased gums to form germ catching pockets, all that, the sum of dental picture and psyche, betrays you, it is stored up violence, full of murdero us designs" Gunter Grass.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2000

In vitro evaluation of Er:YAG laser scaling of subgingival calculus in comparison with ultrasonic scaling.

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Er:YAG laser scaling and the morphological and histological changes of the laser-scaled root surface in comparison with the effectiveness and root surface changes produced by conventional ultrasonic scaling. Fifty-three periodontally involved human extracted teeth with a band of subgingival calculus were used. The teeth were divided randomly into 2 groups for laser scaling and ultrasonic scaling. Laser irradiation was performed at an energy output of 40 mJ/pulse and 10 pulses/s under water spray, with the probe tip contacted obliquely to the root surface. Ultrasonic scaling was performed at a clinically standard power setting. The time required for scaling, the scaled area and the temperature changes were determined using both methods of treatment. The features of the scaled surfaces were examined by histological and scanning electron microscope (s.e.m.) observations. The Er:YAG laser provided subgingival calculus removal on a level equivalent to that provided by the ultrasonic scaler, without major thermal elevation. Macroscopically, the laser-treated root surface was somewhat rougher than or similar to the ultrasonically scaled root. However, the efficiency of the laser scaling was lower than that of the ultrasonic scaling. In addition, histological examination revealed a thin deeply stained zone on the lased root surface, and s.e.m. analysis revealed a characteristic microroughness on the lased surface. The laser scaling provided a level of calculus removal that was similar to that provided by the ultrasonic scaling. However, the Er:YAG laser produced superficial, structural and thermal microchanges on the root cementum.

Dental Calculus↗

PubMedDate not supplied

The association between sulfate air pollution and mortality at the county scale: an exploration of the impact of scale on a long-term exposure study.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) Study and its reanalysis are built upon in order to examine the impact of scale on the observed relationship between sulfates and mortality. The limitations of the original ACS Study (Pope et al., 1995) and the reanalysis of this study (Krewski et al., 2000) are discussed; while the latter dealt with some issues in using ecological data, it did not address scale. Next, the article outlines the county-scale study, the methods used to aggregate data, and the two-stage analysis used to derive relative risk (RR). Finally, the results of working at the county scale are compared with those obtained by the reanalysis team using larger metropolitan areas. Less than half of the cohort used in the metropolitan study were used at the county scale because of the limited availability of sulfate monitors and because five-digit ZIP codes more accurately assigned individuals to geographical areas. Therefore, the county data should be considered as new and not as a reorganization of the original data set. The reanalysis and the county studies should be considered as two separate studies that took different scales as their basic organizing principle. The RR of all-cause mortality from sulfate exposure at the county scale was 1.50 (1.30, 1.73) compared with 1.25 (1.13, 1.37) at the metropolitan scale; for cardiopulmonary mortality, the RR was 1.75 (1.48, 2.08) at the county scale compared with 1.29 (1.15, 1.46) at the metropolitan scale. Because lung cancer mortality was low in some counties, the two-stage random effects model became unstable. At the county scale, the RR from sulfates was more robust to the inclusion of ecologic covariates. Other place-specific ecologic covariates were either insignificant or barely significant (with a lower 95% confidence limit near 0.99 or 1.00) when included in the two-stage regression model for all-cause mortality with sulfates. Moreover, no ecologic covariate changed the RR of all-cause mortality from sulfates by 25% or more. Both population change and unemployment rate affected the RR for cardiopulmonary mortality from sulfate exposure by 25% or more in the county-scale analysis. However, when these two variables were entered into a multiple covariate analysis, the RR from sulfates decreased but remained strongly significant. Sulfur dioxide was not an important covariate at the county scale. Thus, at the county scale, long-term exposure to sulfates appears to be more strongly associated with increased risk of all-cause and cardiopulmonary mortality than previously indicated by the ACS study and its reanalysis.

Air Pollution↗

PubMed2005

How responsive is the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)? A comparison with some other self report scales.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the responsiveness of the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29) with other self report scales in three multiple sclerosis (MS) samples using a range of methods. To estimate the impact on clinical trials of differing scale responsiveness. METHODS: We studied three discrete MS samples: consecutive admissions for rehabilitation; consecutive admissions for steroid treatment of relapses; and a cohort with primary progressive MS (PPMS). All patients completed four scales at two time points: MSIS-29; Short Form 36 (SF-36); Functional Assessment of MS (FAMS); and General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). We determined: (1) the responsiveness of each scale in each sample (effect sizes): (2) the relative responsiveness of competing scales within each sample (relative efficiency): (3) the differential responsiveness of competing scales across the three samples (relative precision); and (4) the implications for clinical trials (samples size estimates scales to produce the same effect size). RESULTS: We studied 245 people (64 rehabilitation; 77 steroids; 104 PPMS). The most responsive physical and psychological scales in both rehabilitation and steroids samples were the MSIS-29 physical scale and the GHQ-12. However, the relative ability of different scales to detect change in the two samples was variable. Differing responsiveness implied more than a twofold impact on sample size estimates. CONCLUSIONS: The MSIS-29 was the most responsive physical and second most responsive psychological scale. Scale responsiveness differs notably within and across samples, which affects sample size calculations. Results of clinical trials are scale dependent.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1996

Development of a new type of global quality of life scale, and comparison of performance and preference for 12 global scales.

We constructed a new type of global quality of life (QOL) scale deriving from the Borg symptom scales and compared four versions of this new type of scale (H scale) with four category rating (CR) scales and four visual analogue (VA) scales. Mean self-ratings and mean scenario ratings on different scales showed small but significant differences, and intercorrelations were higher amongst the H scales than amongst the CR or VA scales. H scales were on average most preferred (by undergraduates and elderly subjects) followed by CR and lastly VA scales in terms of case of use and perceived accuracy of representation. We investigated the preferred polarity of the scales: subjects preferred 'Perfect quality of life' to be indicated by 20 or 100 (with slight preference for the latter) rather than 0. The H scales have eight additional quantifiers between the end labels and there was good agreement about the perceived magnitude of these quantifiers.

Adult↗

PubMed2006

Do small-scale exclosure/enclosure experiments predict the effects of large-scale extirpation of freshwater migratory fauna?

A variety of theoretical and empirical studies indicate that the abilities of small-scale experiments to predict responses to large-scale perturbations vary. Small-scale experiments often do not predict the directions of large-scale responses, and relatively few empirical studies have examined whether small-scale experiments predict the magnitudes of large-scale responses. Here we present an empirical example of small-scale manipulations predicting not only the directions but also the magnitudes of the effects of whole-catchment, decades-long decimation of migratory freshwater shrimp populations. In streams of Puerto Rico (USA), we used arena sizes of <2 m2 in 1- to 4-week exclosure/enclosure experiments. Effects of small-scale experiments largely matched those of large-scale shrimp loss above dams for a variety of response variables (abiotic and biotic factors including epilithic fine sediments, algae and organic matter, and invertebrate grazers, detritivores, and predators). The results of our extrapolation contrast with studies of small- versus large-scale perturbations in the temperate zone. Our findings are likely explained by: a set of response variables that are more dominated by within-patch processes than exchange processes, an experimental manipulation that encompassed the characteristic scales of response variables, our use of open arenas lacking cage artifacts, and/or our combination of two distinct experimental approaches (exclosures and enclosures). Based on our study design, we suggest that extrapolation across experimental scales can be greatly enhanced by embedding open arenas within large-scale conditions that represent all treatment levels.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

Development and reliability of a standard rating system for outcome measurement of foot and ankle disorders II: interclinician and intraclinician reliability and validity of the newly established standard rating scales and Japanese Orthopaedic Association rating scale.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the validity and inter- and intraclinician reliability of (1) the Japanese Society of Surgery of the Foot (JSSF) standard rating system for four sites [ankle-hindfoot (AH), midfoot (MF), hallux (HL), and lesser toe (LT)] and the rheumatoid arthritis (RA) foot and ankle scale and (2) the Japanese Orthopaedic Association's foot rating scale (JOA scale). METHODS: Clinicians from the same institute independently evaluated participating patients from their institute by two evaluations at a 1- to 4-week interval. Statistical evaluation was as follows. (1) The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated from data collected from at least two examinations of each patient by at least two evaluating clinicians (Data A). (2) Total scores for the two evaluations were determined from the distribution of differences in data between the two evaluations (Data B); each item was evaluated by determining Cohen's coefficient of agreement. (3) The relation between patient satisfaction and total score was investigated only for patients who underwent surgery (Data C). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was obtained. RESULTS: Participants were 65 clinicians and 610 patients, including those with disorders of the AH (313), MF (47), HL (153), and LT (50) and those with RA (47). From Data A, the ICC was high for AH and HL by JSSF scales and for AH, MF, and LT by the JOA scale. From Data B, the coefficient showed high validity for both scales for AH, with almost no difference between the two scales; the validity for HL was higher with the JOA scale than with the JSSF scale. From Data C, correlations were significant between patient satisfaction and outcome for AH and HL by the JSSF scales and for AH, HL, and LT by the JOA scale. CONCLUSIONS: The validity of both scales was high. Clinical evaluation of the therapeutic results using these scales would be highly reliable.

Ankle↗

PubMed1999

Reliability of the Tone Assessment Scale and the modified Ashworth scale as clinical tools for assessing poststroke spasticity.

OBJECTIVES: To establish reliability of the Tone Assessment Scale and modified Ashworth scale in acute stroke patients. SETTING: A North Liverpool university hospital. PATIENTS: Eighteen men and 14 women admitted with acute stroke and still in hospital at the study start date (median age, 74 yrs; median Barthel score, 8). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The modified Ashworth scale and the Tone Assessment Scale. STUDY DESIGN: The 32 patients were examined with both scales on the same occasion by two raters (interrater comparison) and on two occasions by one rater (intrarater comparison). RESULTS: The reliability of the modified Ashworth scale was very good (kappa = .84 for interrater and .83 for intrarater comparisons). The reliability of the Tone Assessment Scale was not as strong as the modified Ashworth scale, with marked variability in the assessment of posture (kappa = .22 to .50 for interrater and .29 to .55 for intrarater comparisons) and associated reaction (kappa/kappaW = -.05 to .79 for interrater and .19 to .83 for intrarater comparisons). However, those aspects of the Tone Assessment Scale that addressed response to passive movement and that are scored similarly to the modified Ashworth scale showed good to very good interrater reliability (kappaW = .79 to .92) and good to very good intrarater reliability (kappaW = .72 to .86), except for the question related to movement at the ankle where agreement was only moderate (kappaW = .59). CONCLUSIONS: The modified Ashworth scale is reliable. The section of the Tone Assessment Scale relating to response to passive movement is reliable at various joints, except the ankle. It may assist in studies on the prevalence of spasticity after stroke and the relationship between tone and function. Further development of a measure of spasticity at the ankle is required. The Tone Assessment Scale is not reliable for measuring posture and associated reactions.

Aged↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[Validity of a job stressors measurement scale in nursing staff: the nursing stress scale].

BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to determine the reliability and construct validity of a scale intended to measure job stressors to which hospital nursing staff may be exposed. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The nursing stress scale contains 34 stressors. The scale's trans-cultural adaptation was carried out by means of the translation-back translation method. Validation was conducted on a random sample of 201 health professionals in a public hospital in Valencia. The reliability of the scale was assessed after its readministration on a sub-sample of 30 nursing professionals, with a 15 day interval. The construct validity was obtained through the correlation of the scale with another two scales: The 28 item version of Goldberg's General Health Questionnaire and 7 dimensions of the Health questionnaire SF-36. RESULTS: The scale in Spanish language contains 34 items after eliminating the first item from the original scale (N1: computer failure) and including a new item (E1: Frequent job interruptions). The distribution of scores obtained in the initial administration of the scale and fifteen days later do not differ statistically. The Cronbach's alfa coefficient is 0.92 for the total scale and in each of the sub-scales ranges between 0. 83 and 0.49. The correlation between the scale and the GHQ-28 items questionnaire is 0.34. For each one of the seven dimensions of the SF-36 questionnaire the correlations range between -0.21 and -0.31. CONCLUSION: The nursing stress scale is a useful instrument for measuring possible stressors in this collective. It has high internal consistency and construct validity, as does the original American version, however reliability is moderate.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗

PubMed1998

Prediction of functional outcome after stroke: comparison of the Orpington Prognostic Scale and the NIH Stroke Scale.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study compared the ability of 2 stroke impairment scales, Orpington Prognostic Scale and National Institutes of Health (NIH) Stroke Scale, to predict disability as measured by the Barthel activities of daily living (ADL) Index and higher level of self-reported physical functioning as measured by the SF-36 physical functioning index (PFI) at 1, 3, and 6 months after stroke. METHODS: The participants in this ongoing study are 184 individuals who sustained an eligible stroke and were recruited for the Kansas City Stroke Study. All patients were prospectively evaluated using standardized assessments at enrollment (within 14 days of stroke onset) and followed at 1, 3, and 6 months after stroke. Coefficient of determination (R2) was used to assess the ability of the 2 stroke scales to prognosticate outcomes. RESULTS: Means and SDs of the Orpington Prognostic Scale and NIH Stroke Scale measured at baseline were 3.6+/-1.31 and 5.5+/-4.58, respectively. The Spearman's rank correlation between the 2 baseline measures was 0.83 (P=0.0001). The Orpington Prognostic Scale and the NIH Stroke Scale explained well the variance in Barthel ADL Index (P<0.001). However, the Orpington Prognostic Scale explained more variance than did the NIH Stroke Scale. Similarly, the Orpington Prognostic Score explained more variance in higher level of physical function than did the NIH Stroke Scale. The amount of variance in Barthel ADL Index and SF-36 PFI, which were explained by both stroke severity measures, decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that in a sample of mostly mild and moderate strokes, the Orpington Prognostic Scale compared with the NIH Stroke Scale is simpler to use and is a slightly better predictor of ADL and higher levels of physical function.

Activities of Daily Living↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Comparing the standard rating scale and the magnifier scale for assessing risk perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: A new risk perception rating scale ("magnifier scale") was recently developed to reduce elevated perceptions of low-probability health events, but little is known about its performance. The authors tested whether the magnifier scale lowers risk perceptions for low-probability (in 0%-1% magnifying glass section of scale) but not high-probability (>1%) events compared to a standard rating scale (SRS). METHOD: In studies 1 (n = 463) and 2 (n = 105), undergraduates completed a survey assessing risk perceptions of high- and low-probability events in a randomized 2 x 2 design: in study 1 using the magnifier scale or SRS, numeric risk information provided or not, and in study 2 using the magnifier scale or SRS, high- or low-probability event. In study 3, hypertension patients at the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs hospital completed a similar survey (n = 222) assessing risk perceptions of 2 self-relevant high-probability events-heart attack and stroke-with the magnifier scale or the SRS. RESULTS: In study 1, when no risk information was provided, risk perceptions for both high- and low-probability events were significantly lower (P < 0.0001) when using the magnifier scale compared to the SRS, but risk perceptions were no different by scale when risk information was provided (interaction term: P = 0.003). In studies 2 and 3, risk perceptions for the high-probability events were significantly lower using the magnifier scale than the SRS (P = 0.015 and P = 0.014, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The magnifier scale lowered risk perceptions but did so for low- and high-probability events, suggesting that the magnifier scale should not be used for assessments of risk perceptions for high-probability events.

Female↗

PubMed1987

Quantitative pain assessment for routine care of rheumatoid arthritis patients, using a pain scale based on activities of daily living and a visual analog pain scale.

Pain was assessed quantitatively as a component of routine visits of 385 outpatients with rheumatoid arthritis, using a pain scale based on activities of daily living (ADL) and a visual analog scale. The ADL pain scale met psychometric criteria for validity and reliability. Scores on the 2 pain scales were correlated significantly with one another and with other measures of disease status, including joint count, grip strength, walking time, button test, morning stiffness, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, global self-assessment, ADL difficulty, and ADL dissatisfaction scales. Correlations of ADL pain scale scores with other measures were higher than were correlations of visual analog scale scores with other measures, in both unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Significantly more patients completed the ADL pain scale without assistance than the number of those who completed the visual analog pain scale. The ADL pain scale was more sensitive to problems in ADL than were the ADL scales for difficulty and dissatisfaction. The ADL and visual analog pain scales appear to provide useful data for quantitative assessment of pain in the routine care of rheumatoid arthritis patients.

Activities of Daily Living↗

PubMed2002

Ten-year review of rating scales. I: overview of scale functioning, psychometric properties, and selection.

OBJECTIVE: As part of the Journal's 10-year Research Update Reviews, a series of articles will be presented on the role of rating scales in child and adolescent psychiatry. The first article in the series summarizes principles underlying scale functioning. METHOD: Sources were reviewed regarding testing theory, scale development, variability in scale functioning, psychometric properties, and scale selection. The extracted information was adapted to issues in child and adolescent psychiatry. RESULTS: Rating scales can make major contributions to understanding youths' needs. They provide easy and efficient measurement of psychopathology and quantify underlying constructs for comparison across youths, time, and applications. Although multiple factors may affect a scale's functioning, these factors can be understood and managed by considering the goals of measurement and basic psychometric principles. CONCLUSIONS: Potential users of rating scales should not blindly assume that a well-known scale will meet the measurement needs for a particular application. Rather, they can relatively easily educate themselves regarding the appropriate use of rating scales. This article provides the background information needed to evaluate scales for intended applications. It will also assist in reviewing the individual scales presented in subsequent articles in this series.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2006

The Tardieu Scale differentiates contracture from spasticity whereas the Ashworth Scale is confounded by it.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the Tardieu Scale as a clinical measure of spasticity after stroke with the Ashworth Scale. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen people, living in the community three years after their stroke. MAIN MEASURES: The Ashworth Scale and Tardieu Scale as well as laboratory measures of spasticity (stretch-induced electromyographic (EMG) activity) and contracture (maximum passive joint excursion) were collected from the affected elbow flexors and extensors and ankle plantarflexors and dorsiflexors by three examiners who were blinded to the results of the other measures. RESULTS: The percentage exact agreement (PEA) between the Tardieu Scale and a laboratory measure of spasticity was 100% for both the elbow flexors and ankle plantarflexors. This was significantly (P= 0.02) greater than the PEA of 63% for both muscles between the Ashworth Scale and the same laboratory measure of spasticity. For contracture, the PEA between the Tardieu Scale and a laboratory measure was 94% for both the elbow flexors and the ankle plantarflexors. Pearson correlation coefficients between the Tardieu Scale and laboratory measures of spasticity were 0.86 for the elbow flexors and 0.62 for the ankle plantarflexors and between the Tardieu Scale and laboratory measures of contracture were 0.89 for the elbow flexors and 0.84 for the ankle plantarflexors. CONCLUSION: In all cases that spasticity was overestimated by the Ashworth Scale, participants had a contracture. These findings suggest that the Tardieu Scale differentiates spasticity from contracture whereas the Ashworth Scale is confounded by it.

Aged↗

PubMed2002

On the incremental validity of MMPI-2 Psychopathology-5 scales over the revised NEO Personality Inventory scales for predicting personality disorders.

The hypothesis that the MMPI-2 Psychopathology-5 scales are better predictors of personality disorders than the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales was tested using Personality Adjective Checklist personality disorder scales with a 9-point response format. The three inventories were completed by 258 introductory psychology students (113 men and 145 women) for partial course credit. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed for predicting each Personality Adjective Checklist scale by entering the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales as a set in the first step and the Psychopathology-5 scales as a set in the second step. Incremental validity of the Psychopathology-5 scales over the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales for predicting each Personality Adjective Checklist scale was measured by the R2 change at the end of the second step in the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Incremental validity values ranged from .01 to .09, with a median of .03, and were significant for only five Personality Adjective Checklist scales. Such results provided very little support for the hypothesis of relative superiority of the Psychopathology-5 scales over the Revised NEO Personality Inventory domain scales for predicting personality disorders.

Adult↗

PubMed2002

Ten-year review of rating scales. II: Scales for internalizing disorders.

OBJECTIVE: This article, the second in the Journal's series of 10-year updates on rating scales, summarizes scales assessing internalizing disorders. METHOD: The authors sampled articles on mood and anxiety disorders over the past 25 years, selected scales with multiple citations over many years, and reviewed their properties. Those with adequate psychometric properties, plus continued wide literature citations or a current special niche, are presented here. RESULTS: Rating scales for depression were developed and/or examined in the 1980s. Despite generally strong properties, they lack clear construct validity. Most have parent-report forms that broaden their suitability with youths. Anxiety scales were developed bimodally. Those developed in the 1960s to 1970s were downward modifications of adult scales. They have been criticized for unclear constructs and unsuitability for youths. Newer scales developed in the 1990s have addressed these problems and have parent-report forms. However, their utility is still being determined. CONCLUSIONS: Rating scales can reliably, validly, and efficiently measure youths' internalizing psychopathology. They have great utility in research, treatment planning, and accountability in practice. However, the user must define the goals of measurement, consider the construct the scale measures, and use the scale within its defined capabilities. The use of more than one scale for a task is recommended.

Adolescent↗

PubMed2002

Ten-year review of rating scales. III: scales assessing suicidality, cognitive style, and self-esteem.

OBJECTIVE: This is the third article in a series of 10-year reviews of rating scales. Here, the authors review scales that are useful in tapping the affective disturbances experienced with various psychiatric disorders, including suicidality, cognitive style, and self-esteem. METHOD: The authors sampled articles incorporating these constructs over the past 25 years and selected scales with established uses or new development. Those presented here have adequate psychometric properties and high utility for efficiently elucidating youths' functioning, plus either wide literature citations or a special niche. RESULTS: These scales were developed bimodally. Many were developed in the 1980s when internalizing disorders were elucidated, but there has been a resurgence of interest in these constructs. Scales assessing suicidality have clear constructs, whereas scales of cognitive style demonstrate deficits in developmental relevance, and scales of self-esteem suffer from lax constructs. CONCLUSIONS: The constructs underlying these scales tap core symptoms of internalizing disorders, mediate the expression of affective disturbances associated with various disorders, and depict the impairments resulting from these disorders. Overall, the psychometrics of these scales are adequate. These scales provide a broader representation of youths' functioning than that conveyed with diagnostic scales alone.

Adolescent↗

PubMed1993

The MMPI and MMPI-2 in an outpatient sample: comparisons of code types, validity scales, and clinical scales.

Two hundred (N = 200) outpatients completed MMPI (W.G. Dahlstrom, Walsh, & L.G. Dahlstrom, 1989) and MMPI-2 (Butcher, W.G. Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) items at one time, permitting comparison of alternate forms. The concordance rate for elevated codetypes was 58%; for 2-point codetypes independent of elevation, it was also 58%. Only 50% of the men compared to 66% of the women showed concordance between forms. Of the 200 cases, 72 (36%) had codetypes that were both elevated and "well defined." The concordance rate among these 71 cases was 72%. Comparison of mean raw scores for the validity and clinical scales showed a small difference for MMPI versus MMPI-2 (Form) on Scales 2 and 5, small differences for Gender on Scales 1, 2, and 3, and no Gender by Form interactions. There were significant MMPI versus MMPI-2 differences for T-scores on all scales, and there were significant Gender by Form interactions for T-scores on all scales except Scale L, Scale K, and Scale 6 (excluding Scale 5). Comparison of mean T-scores (excluding Scale 5) showed no significant differences for Gender on the 12 scales. In spite of significant mean differences, correlational analyses show correlations above .96 for the raw scores and T-scores for each gender, indicating that rank ordering of cases is maintained between forms. These results are discussed in terms of the issues for use of the MMPI-2 compared to the MMPI.

Adult↗