目的:初步探讨中文版小脑认知情感综合征量表(CCAS量表)在小脑损伤人群中的信度和效度。
方法:在本研究中,使用中文版CCAS量表A评估了在卒中中心住院的40例小脑损伤患者和39例正常人,MMSE,和PHQ2,并使用内容效度对结果进行分析,结构有效性,内部一致性,评价者间协议,和重测可靠性。
结果:语义流畅度的相关系数,音素流畅性,类别切换,数字跨度向前,数字跨度向后,立方体,口头回忆,中文版CCAS量表A与总分的相似性和GoNo-Go分分别为0.586-0.831(P≤0.05),但是影响与总分之间没有显着相关性(P=0.110)。中文版CCAS量表A的认知总分与(r=0.807,P≤0.01),中文版CCAS量表A影响总分与PHQ2总分相关(r=0.884,P≤0.01)。使用主成分分析提取这2个因素,累积方差贡献率为59.633%。各相应因子的因子负荷均>0.5,表明CCAS量表中文版结构效度较好A.Cronbachα=0.827表明内部一致性较好,评分者间信度(ICC>0.95)和重测信度(ICC=0.717-0.895)表明,中文版CCAS量表A具有良好的评分者间信度和重测信度。
结论:中文版CCAS量表A在小脑损伤人群中具有良好的信度和效度,可用于小脑认知情绪综合征的筛查。
OBJECTIVE: To preliminarily investigate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Cerebellar Cognitive Affective Syndrome Scale (CCAS scale) in the cerebellar injury population.
METHODS: In this study, 40 patients with cerebellar injury and 39 normal individuals hospitalized in a stroke center were assessed using the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A, MMSE, and PHQ2, and the results were analyzed using content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, inter- rater agreement, and test-retest reliability.
RESULTS: The correlation coefficients of semantic fluency, phonemic fluency, category switching, digit span forward, digit span backward, cube, verbal recall, similarities and Go No-Go subscores in the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A were 0.586-0.831 (P ≤ 0.05) with the total score, but there was no significant correlation between the affect and the total score (P = 0.110). The total cognitive score of the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A was correlated with the (r = 0.807, P ≤ 0.01), and the total score of the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A affect was correlated with the total score of PHQ2 (r = 0.884, P ≤ 0.01). The 2 factors were extracted using principal component analysis, and the cumulative variance contribution rate was 59.633%. The factor loadings of each of the corresponding factors were > 0.5, indicating good structural validity of the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A. Cronbach α = 0.827 indicated good internal consistency, and inter-rater reliability (ICC > 0.95) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.717-0.895)indicated that the Chinese version of the CCAS scale A had good inter-rater reliability and test-retest reliability.
CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of the CCAS scale A has good reliability and validity in the cerebellar injury population and is useful for screening cerebellar cognitive-emotional syndrome.