Log in

Relevant bibliographies by topics / Screening instruments / Journal articles

Journal articles on the topic 'Screening instruments'

To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Screening instruments.

Author: Grafiati

Published: 4 June 2021

Last updated: 4 February 2022

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles

Select a source type:

Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Screening instruments.'

Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.

You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.

Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.

1

NELSON, AARON, BARRY S. FOGEL, and DAVID FAUST. "Bedside Cognitive Screening Instruments." Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 174, no. 2 (February 1986): 73–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005053-198602000-00002.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Søgaard, Hans J. "Choosing screening instrument and cut-point on screening instruments. A comparison of methods." Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 37, no. 8 (August 28, 2009): 872–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1403494809344442.

Full text

Abstract:

Aims: This study analyzes decisive measures of efficiency of a test, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and QROC analysis combined with considerations about clinical, health-economic, and ethical aspects when choosing screening instruments. Methods: Analyses of Common Mental Disorders Screening Questionnaire (CMD-SQ) and its subscales SCL-SOM, Whiteley-7, SCL-ANX4, SCL-DEP6, SCL-8, plus combinations, for early detection of psychiatric disorders, are the subject for this analysis. In all, 46.4% of 2,414 new people with continuous sickness absence for more than eight weeks over one year in a well-defined Danish population of 120,000 inhabitants participated in the study. The study was performed as a two phase study. All 1,121 persons in Phase 1 filled in the CMD-SQ. In Phase 2, a random subsample of Phase 1 on 337, the people were further examined by a psychiatrist using SCAN as gold standard. The analyses were performed as weighted analyses on Phase 2. Results: From 17 analyses it was shown that the efficiency of a test, ROC analyses, and QROC analyses resulted in different optimal scales and cut-points. The random possibility of a positive test or negative test in the population is discussed for efficiency and ROC analyses. QROC analyses correct for this by the relative κ-values as decisive measures. However, QROC analyses may discard tests of value, all depending on the purpose of the test. Conclusions: In supplement to test statistics the capacity of services to follow up on screening, ethics, and health economy are issues that should be considered in deciding what rating scale and cut-point should be adopted.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Sacks, Stanley, Gerald Melnick, Carrie Coen, Steve Banks, Peter D. Friedmann, Christine Grella, Kevin Knight, and Caron Zlotnick. "CJDATS Co-Occurring Disorders Screening Instrument for Mental Disorders." Criminal Justice and Behavior 34, no. 9 (September 2007): 1198–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0093854807304430.

Full text

Abstract:

Three standardized screening instruments—the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Short Screener, the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview—Modified, and the Mental Health Screening Form (MHSF)—were compared to two shorter instruments, the 6-item Co-Occurring Disorders Screening Instrument for Mental Disorders (CODSI-MD) and the 3-item CODSI for Severe Mental Disorders (CODSI-SMD) for use with offenders in prison substance abuse treatment programs. Results showed that the CODSI screening instruments were comparable to the longer instruments in overall accuracy and that all of the instruments performed reasonably well. The CODSI instruments showed sufficient value to justify their use in prison substance abuse treatment programs and to warrant validation testing in other criminal justice populations and settings.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

WALSH, JESSICA A., KRISTINA CALLIS DUFFIN, GERALD G. KRUEGER, and DANIEL O. CLEGG. "Limitations in Screening Instruments for Psoriatic Arthritis: A Comparison of Instruments in Patients with Psoriasis." Journal of Rheumatology 40, no. 3 (February 1, 2013): 287–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.120836.

Full text

Abstract:

Objective.To compare the abilities of 3 validated screening instruments to predict the diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA) in patients with psoriasis.Methods.Prior to a rheumatologic evaluation, 213 participants in the Utah Psoriasis Initiative completed the Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening project (PEST), the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen (ToPAS), and the Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (PASE). Previously established instrument cutoff scores were used to designate positive and negative classifications. Sensitivities and specificities were determined by comparing instrument classifications to the rheumatologist’s diagnosis. Phenotypic features and alternative diagnoses were compared between participants who screened positively and negatively on each instrument. Discrepancies between the rheumatologist’s examination findings and responses to specific instrument questions were compared.Results.The sensitivities of PEST, ToPAS, and PASE were 85%, 75%, and 68%, and the specificities were 45%, 55%, and 50%, respectively. The instruments were less sensitive in patients with lower disease activity, fewer PsA features, and shorter disease duration. The instruments did not consistently differentiate between PsA and other types of musculoskeletal disease. Discrepancies between examination findings and responses to instrument questions occurred more frequently with ToPAS than with PEST and PASE.Conclusion.Sensitivities and specificities for PEST, ToPAS, and PASE were lower than previously reported. This population included patients with PsA and other types of musculoskeletal disease and may represent those most likely to complete a screening instrument and follow through with a rheumatology referral. Further analyses may enable the development of more successful screening strategies for PsA in psoriasis patients with musculoskeletal complaints.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

MEROLA, JOSEPH F., M. ELAINE HUSNI, and ABRAR A. QURESHI. "Screening Instruments for Psoriatic Arthritis." Journal of Rheumatology 40, no. 9 (September 2013): 1623. http://dx.doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.130474.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

King, Kathleen R., and Amy L. Reschly. "A Comparison of Screening Instruments." Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 32, no. 8 (May 5, 2014): 687–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282914531714.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

El-Behadli, Ana F., Emily N. Neger, Ellen C. Perrin, and R. Christopher Sheldrick. "Translations of Developmental Screening Instruments." Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics 36, no. 6 (2015): 471–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/dbp.0000000000000193.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Martin, Donel M., Shawn M. McClintock, and Colleen K. Loo. "Brief cognitive screening instruments for electroconvulsive therapy: Which one should I use?" Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 54, no. 9 (May 21, 2020): 867–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0004867420924093.

Full text

Abstract:

Objectives: To review brief cognitive screening instruments for routine clinical monitoring in electroconvulsive therapy. Methods: Brief cognitive screening instruments specifically developed for electroconvulsive therapy and commonly used brief generalised cognitive screening instruments were reviewed with relative advantages and disadvantages highlighted. Results: Several brief cognitive screening tests designed for use in electroconvulsive therapy have been found sensitive for monitoring electroconvulsive therapy–related cognitive side effects. The choice of a brief generalised cognitive screening instrument for use in an electroconvulsive therapy clinical context comes with several pertinent considerations. Conclusion: Electroconvulsive therapy is a highly effective treatment for pharmacoresistant and severe neuropsychiatric illness although cognitive side effects can be a barrier for treatment. Routine monitoring using brief cognitive screening instruments has advantages in busy clinical settings and can assist with optimising patient outcomes. More detailed neuropsychological assessment is recommended if the results from brief cognitive screening raise concerns.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Meekes, Wytske, J. C. Korevaar, C. J. Leemrijse, and L. A. M. van de Goor. "A Practical and Validated Fall Risk Screening Instrument: A Systematic Review." Innovation in Aging 4, Supplement_1 (December 1, 2020): 233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igaa057.752.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Early detection of a high fall risk is important to start fall preventive interventions in time and to reduce fall risk among older people. Several fall risk screening instruments are available, however it is unclear which instrument is validated and most suitable for the primary care setting. This systematic review aims to identify the most suitable fall risk screening instrument(s) for the primary care setting (i.e. requires limited time, no expensive equipment and no additional space) with good prognostic ability to assess high fall risk among independently living older people. An extensive search was conducted in the databases PubMed, EMBASE CINAHL, Cochrane and PsycINFO. Twenty-six out of 2277 articles published between January 2000 and February 2019 were included. Six fall risk screening instruments were identified; TUG test, Gait Speed test, BBS, POMA, FR test, Fall History. Most articles reported AUCs ranging from 0.5-0.7 for all instruments. Sensitivity and specificity varied substantially across studies (e.g. TUG, sens.: 10-83.3%, spec.:37-96.6%). The results showed that none of the included screening instruments had sufficient (AUC>0.7) predictive performance (Šimundić, 2009). As suitability for the primary care setting prevails for now, Fall History appears to be the most suitable screening instrument. Compared to the other instruments, Fall History requires the least amount of time, no expensive equipment, no training, and no space (adjustments). Patient’s fall history together with a health care professional’s clinical judgment, might be a promising screening strategy for the primary care setting to identify high fall risk among older people.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Can, G., G. Ayan, A. Ozdede, M. Bektaş, N. Akdogan, B. Yalici-Armagan, E. Oksum Solak, et al. "AB0579 INSTRUMENTS FOR SCREENING PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS AMONG PATIENTS WITH PSORIASIS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW." Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 80, Suppl 1 (May 19, 2021): 1327.1–1327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-eular.3275.

Full text

Abstract:

Background:Timely diagnosis is essential for the optimal management of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Several instruments have been developed for screening PsA among patients with psoriasis. However, a delay in diagnosis is still frequently reported, possibly due to the lack of a wide use of these instruments.Objectives:We aimed to identify and compare the reported performance of these instruments with special emphasis on the PsA phenotypes.Methods:We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed until 15 August 2020 using the keyword ‘psoriatic arthritis’. Two independent reviewers identified all studies published in English, that report on the validation, psychometric evaluation or use of an instrument for screening PsA. Any disagreements were resolved by the third investigator. Data on sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values were extracted or calculated for each instrument. Additionally, instruments were assessed for their performance in patients with different disease phenotypes.Results:A total of 10754 references were screened, and 42 were identified that reported on 15 different screening instruments. Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (PASE), Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST), Early Arthritis for Psoriatic Patients questionnaire (EARP) were the most commonly used instruments. There was important variability across studies regarding the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of these instruments based on the cut-offs for positivity, setting, patient population and disease phenotypes (Table 1). Specificity was higher when patients with a previous diagnosis of other rheumatic diseases were excluded. Lower sensitivity was reported among patients with shorter disease duration and when patients with a prior diagnosis of PsA were excluded from the study, whereas higher sensitivity was reported among patients with prior NSAID use. Screening tools showed differences in sensitivity in different domains (Figure 1).Figure 1.Performance Among Patients with Each DomainConclusion:This systematic literature review revealed wide variability in the diagnostic estimates of currently available questionnaire-based screening instruments for identifying PsA among psoriasis patients, depending on study populations and disease phenotypes. There is an unmet need for a screening instrument with a better performance in all disease domains.Table 1.Diagnostic estimates of screening tools in different studiesInstrumentNumber of studiesSensitivity%Specificity%PPV%NPV%PASE1824-9138-9518-8813-96PEST1140 – 8537.2-98.623-9647.1-99.3EARP941-97.234-97.214-93.357.5-100TOPAS641-89.129.7-9025.7-91.868-81.6TOPAS-II444-95.880.5-9863.4-95.891-98PsA-Disk questionnaire187.246.458.678.5CONTEST270-76.556.5-9116-8968-95STRIPP191.593.379.697.5SiPAS179877390PASQ267-92.764-81.84383GEPARD277706680Swedish- Psoriasis Assessment Questionnaire163724585PAQ160622687.5SiPAT169699169A novel, short, and simple screening questionnaire186.971.35393.6PASE: Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation, PEST: Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, EARP: Early Arthritis for Psoriatic Patients questionnaire, TOPAS: Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire, STRIPP: Screening Tool for Rheumatologic Investigation,SIPAS: Simple Psoriatic Arthritis Screening questionnaire, PASQ: Psoriasis and Arthritis Screening Questionnaire, GEPARD: German Psoriatic Arthritis Diagnostic Questionnaire, PAQ: Psoriatic and Arthritic Questionnaire, SiPAT: Siriraj Psoriatic Arthritis Screening ToolDisclosure of Interests:None declared.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Lough, Jonathan, and Kathryn Von Treuer. "A critical review of psychological instruments used in police officer selection." Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management 36, no. 4 (November 4, 2013): 737–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/pijpsm-11-2012-0104.

Full text

Abstract:

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to critically examine the instruments used in the screening process, with particular attention given to supporting research validation. Psychological screening is a well-established process used in the selection of employees across public safety industries, particularly in police settings. Screening in and screening out are both possible, with screening out being the most commonly used method. Little attention, however, has been given to evaluating the comparative validities of the instruments used. Design/methodology/approach – This review investigates literature supporting the use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the California Personality Inventory (CPI), the Inwald Personality Inventory (IPI), the Australian Institute of Forensic Psychology's test battery (AIFP), and some other less researched tests. Research supporting the validity of each test is discussed. Findings – It was found that no test possesses unequivocal research support, although the CPI and AIFP tests show promise. Most formal research into the validity of the instruments lacks appropriate experimental structure and is therefore less powerful as “evidence” of the utility of the instrument(s). Practical implications – This research raises the notion that many current screening practices are likely to be adding minimal value to the selection process by way of using instruments that are not “cut out” for the job. This has implications for policy and practice at the recruitment stage of police employment. Originality/value – This research provides a critical overview of the instruments and their validity studies rather than examining the general process of psychological screening. As such, it is useful to those working in selection who are facing the choice of psychological instrument. Possibilities for future research are presented, and development opportunities for a best practice instrument are discussed.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Chorwe-Sungania, G., and J. Chipps. "Validity and utility of instruments for screening of depression in women attending antenatal clinics in Blantyre district in Malawi." South African Family Practice 60, no. 4 (August 28, 2018): 55. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/safp.v60i4.4888.

Full text

Abstract:

Introduction: Screening instruments should be brief, valid and easy to use if they are to be useful in a busy antenatal clinic in low-resource settings. A short instrument can be used in a busy antenatal clinic in combination with a more detailed instrument once referred. This study aimed at assessing the validity of a range of depression screening instruments and to test the utility of combining these instruments for use in antenatal clinics in Blantyre district, Malawi.Methods: This was a sensitivity analysis study using a sub-sample of 97 pregnant women drawn from a cross-sectional study (sample size = 480) that was screening for depression in eight antenatal clinics. Data from the cross-sectional study for the 97 pregnant women on the 3-item screener, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-15 (HSCL-15) and Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ), was compared with a gold standard, the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI). Sensitivity, specificity and area under curve (AUC) were calculated to test for validity of the instruments. The utility of various combinations of the instruments was tested using the compensatory, conjunctive, probability and sequential rules.Results: The 3-item screener, EPDS, HSCL-15 and SRQ were valid instruments for screening antenatal depression. Sequential combination of the 3-item screener and SRQ had superior discriminant ability over similar combinations of the 3-item screener and either EPDS or HSCL-15 (sensitivity = 78%, specificity = 88%, AUC = 0.885).Discussion: The 3-item screener, EPDS, HSCL-15 and SRQ are valid instruments for screening depression in local antenatal clinics. The sequential combination of the 3-item screener and SRQ may be a practical, accurate and suitable method for multistage screening of depression in antenatal clinics in Blantyre district, Malawi.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Macy, Marisa. "The Evidence Behind Developmental Screening Instruments." Infants & Young Children 25, no. 1 (2012): 19–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/iyc.0b013e31823d37dd.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Fiedler, Irma G., and Gerda Klingbeil. "Cognitive-screening instruments for the elderly." Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 5, no. 3 (April 1990): 10–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00013614-199004000-00005.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Fitchett, George. "Editorial: Screening Instruments and Patients' Stories." Chaplaincy Today 15, no. 1 (March 1999): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10999183.1999.10767101.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

ST. John, Philip D., Atrick R. Montgomery, and Suzanne L. Tyas. "Alcohol screening and case finding instruments." International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 24, no. 4 (April 2009): 433–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gps.2237.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Ismail, Zahinoor, Tarek K. Rajji, and Kenneth I. Shulman. "Brief cognitive screening instruments: an update." International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 25, no. 2 (February 2010): 111–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gps.2306.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Behera, Priyamadhaba, Sanjeev Kumar Gupta, Baridalyne Nongkynrih, Shashi Kant, Ashwani Kumar Mishra, and Pratap Sharan. "Screening instruments for assessment of depression." Indian Journal of Medical Specialities 8, no. 1 (January 2017): 31–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.injms.2016.11.003.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Catalano, Grazia, Jonathan Mason, Claire Elise Brolan, Siobhan Loughnan, and David Harley. "Diagnosing cognitive impairment in prisoners – a literature review." Journal of Intellectual Disabilities and Offending Behaviour 11, no. 4 (June 26, 2020): 221–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/jidob-01-2020-0002.

Full text

Abstract:

Purpose This literature review identifies instruments for diagnostic assessment of cognitive impairment in prison populations. The purpose of this paper is to promote procedures for early screening and identification of cognitive impairment using instruments appropriate to prisons. Design/methodology/approach A targeted literature review identified studies on screening and diagnostic assessment of adults in jails, prisons, police watch-houses (custody suites), rehabilitation facilities and forensic settings or community settings for offenders. Discriminant validity, suitability, reliability and feasibility of instruments in correctional and forensic settings are presented. Findings From 135 peer-reviewed articles relating to diagnostic assessment of cognitive impairment, 15 instruments were considered appropriate for use in prison settings. Research limitations/implications Selection of instruments for prison use considers suitability of the instrument(s) and clinical workforce capability. Cultural and gender validity of the instrument, its feasibility for use in the prison environment and cost and time to administer are also important. Using appropriate tools as part of a staged and targeted process in the screening and diagnosis of cognitive impairment is demonstrated by two case vignettes presented in this paper. As this was a desk review, the authors did not evaluate the instruments. Originality/value Identification of instruments that are suitable for diagnosis of cognitive impairment in forensic populations informs the rehabilitation of offenders with cognitive impairment in prison and upon release to probation and parole.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Thanki, Danica, Antónia Domingo-Salvany, Gregorio Barrio Anta, Amparo Sánchez Mañez, Noelia Llorens Aleixandre, Josep Maria Suelves, Begoña Brime Beteta, and Julián Vicente. "The Choice of Screening Instrument Matters: The Case of Problematic Cannabis Use Screening in Spanish Population of Adolescents." ISRN Addiction 2013 (December 4, 2013): 1–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/723131.

Full text

Abstract:

The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of problem cannabis use screening instruments administration within wide school surveys, their psychometric properties, overlaps, and relationships with other variables. Students from 7 Spanish regions, aged 14–18, who attended secondary schools were sampled by two-stage cluster sampling (net sample 14,589). Standardized, anonymous questionnaire including DSM-IV cannabis abuse criteria, Cannabis Abuse Screening Test (CAST), and Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS) was self-completed with paper and pencil in the selected classrooms. Data was analysed using classical psychometric theory, bivariate tests, and multinomial logistic regression analysis. Not responding to instruments’ items (10.5–12.3%) was associated with reporting less frequent cannabis use. The instruments overlapped partially, with 16.1% of positives being positive on all three. SDS was more likely to identify younger users with lower frequency of use who thought habitual cannabis use posed a considerable problem. CAST positivity was associated with frequent cannabis use and related problems. It is feasible to use short psychometric scales in wide school surveys, but one must carefully choose the screening instrument, as different instruments identify different groups of users. These may correspond to different types of problematic cannabis use; however, measurement bias seems to play a role too.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Tsoi, Kelvin K. F., Joyce Y. C. Chan, Hoyee W. Hirai, and Samuel Y. S. Wong. "Comparison of diagnostic performance of Two-Question Screen and 15 depression screening instruments for older adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis." British Journal of Psychiatry 210, no. 4 (April 2017): 255–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.116.186932.

Full text

Abstract:

BackgroundScreening for depression in older adults is recommended.AimsTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Two-Question Screen for older adults and compare it with other screening instruments for depression.MethodWe undertook a literature search for studies assessing the diagnostic performance of depression screening instruments in older adults. Combined diagnostic accuracy including sensitivity and specificity were the primary outcomes. Potential risks of bias and the quality of studies were also assessed.ResultsA total of 46506 participants from 132 studies were identified evaluating 16 screening instruments. The majority of studies (63/132) used various versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and 6 used the Two-Question Screen. The combined sensitivity and specificity for the Two-Question Screen were 91.8% (95% CI 85.2–95.6) and 67.7% (95% CI 58.1–76.0), respectively; the diagnostic performance area under the curve (AUC) was 90%. The Two-Question Screen showed comparable performance with other instruments, including clinician-rated scales. The One-Question Screen showed the lowest diagnostic performance with an AUC of 78%. In subgroup analysis, the Two-Question Screen also had good diagnostic performance in screening for major depressive disorder.ConclusionsThe Two-Question Screen is a simple and short instrument for depression screening. Its diagnostic performance is comparable with other instruments and, therefore, it would be favourable to use it for older adult screening programmes.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Livanis, Andrew, and Angela Mouzakitis. "The Treatment Validity of Autism Screening Instruments." Assessment for Effective Intervention 35, no. 4 (August 31, 2010): 206–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534508410381041.

Full text

Abstract:

Treatment validity is a frequently neglected topic of screening instruments used to identify autism spectrum disorders. Treatment validity, however, should represent an important aspect of these instruments to link the resulting data to the selection of interventions as well as make decisions about treatment length and intensity. Research investigating the treatment validity of screening instruments is an important aspect to explore to assist school-based professionals in treatment planning. The current article reviews the treatment validity of current autism screening instruments and attempts to link their content to the outcomes research in autism in an attempt to identify the most critical items that can inform interventions. A case study is provided at the end of the article to illustrate the process and relationship of universal screening assessment to intervention and progress monitoring.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Hale III, William W., Quinten A. W. Raaijmakers, Anne van Hoof, and Wim H. J. Meeus. "Improving Screening Cut-Off Scores for DSM-5 Adolescent Anxiety Disorder Symptom Dimensions with the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders." Psychiatry Journal 2014 (2014): 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/517527.

Full text

Abstract:

Presently most adolescent anxiety disorder screening instruments make their determination of running a high risk for an anxiety disorder on the basis of a cut-off score measured by a single screening which can lead to false positives. Therefore, the goal of this study is to examine whether a repeated administration of the SCARED screening instrument for DSM-5 anxiety disorder symptoms could help in the detection of true positives while also avoiding false positives. Participants were 923 early adolescents from the general community. The adolescents’ ages at the first annual screening ranged from 10 to 15 with an average of 12.5 years. In a prospective five-year longitudinal design, the adolescents completed the SCARED screening instrument for anxiety disorder symptoms on a yearly basis. To detect true positives and avoid false positives, the data were analyzed with Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) cut-off score analyses. ROC cut-off score analyses revealed that the sensitivity and specificity of high risk were greatly improved for repeated screenings above those of a single screening. The findings of this study demonstrate that a screening instrument (such as the SCARED) should be administered not just once but several times in order to better determine true positives and avoid false positives.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Miles, Sandra, Paul Fulbrook, and Debra Mainwaring-Mägi. "Evaluation of Standardized Instruments for Use in Universal Screening of Very Early School-Age Children: Suitability, Technical Adequacy, and Usability." Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 36, no. 2 (September 26, 2016): 99–119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282916669246.

Full text

Abstract:

Universal screening of very early school-age children (age 4-7 years) is important for early identification of learning problems that may require enhanced learning opportunity. In this context, use of standardized instruments is critical to obtain valid, reliable, and comparable assessment outcomes. A wide variety of standardized instruments is available for screening and assessment purposes, though previous reviews have revealed some technical inadequacies. Suitability and usability of instruments should be considered as well as technical adequacy, making instrument selection a challenge for education professionals. This review used a systematic search to identify 48 instruments that measured development and early academic skills in very early school-age children. Instruments were evaluated and mapped against established psychometric and usability criteria, and rated as good, adequate, or not adequate. The results provide education professionals with a guide to selection of standardized instruments suitable for this age group and assessment purpose.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

Towle, Patricia O., and Patricia A. Patrick. "Autism Spectrum Disorder Screening Instruments for Very Young Children: A Systematic Review." Autism Research and Treatment 2016 (2016): 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4624829.

Full text

Abstract:

Research on ASD in infancy has provided a rationale for developing screening instruments for children from the first year of life to age of 18 months. A comprehensive literature search identified candidate screening tools. Using methodological probe questions adapted from the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS), two Level 1 and three Level 2 screening instruments were reviewed in detail. Research evidence conclusions were that instrument development was in beginning phases, is not yet strong, and requires further development. Clinical recommendations were to continue vigilant developmental and autism surveillance from the first year on but to use the screening instrumentsper seonly for high-risk children rather than for population screening, with considerations regarding feasibility for individual settings, informing caregivers about strengths and weaknesses of the tool, and monitoring new research.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Pauli, Jena, Angela Starkweather, and Jo Lynne Robins. "Screening Tools to Predict the Development of Chronic Low Back Pain: An Integrative Review of the Literature." Pain Medicine 20, no. 9 (October 10, 2018): 1651–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pm/pny178.

Full text

Abstract:

AbstractObjectiveTo identify and describe available instruments that can be used to screen patients with acute or subacute low back pain for a chronic low back pain trajectory.DesignIntegrative literature review.MethodsAn electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and PsychINFO databases took place from May through July of 2014 using systematic search strategies to identify screening instruments developed to identify people at risk of chronic low back pain. After screening for inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as quality indicators, the identified studies were categorized based on whether the instrument measured psychological, clinical, or functional measures to predict chronic low back pain.ResultsInitial searches identified 2,274 potential articles. After assessing for duplicates, title, and abstract content, there were 129 remaining articles. Articles were further excluded after analysis of the text, for a total of 42 studies reviewed. Most instruments reviewed were unable to provide evidence of predictive power for developing chronic low back pain.ConclusionsThis review identified numerous instruments developed to assess the likelihood of chronic low back pain in acute and subacute low back pain populations. Of the instruments reviewed, the STarT Back Screening Tool and the Örebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire demonstrated superior predictive power compared with other instruments. Both screening tools offer evidence of validation, translation into different languages and international application, and usage in various health care settings and provide data on predictive power.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Shulman, Kenneth I., Nathan Herrmann, Henry Brodaty, Helen Chiu, Brian Lawlor, Karen Ritchie, and James M. Scanlan. "IPA survey of brief cognitive screening instruments." International Psychogeriatrics 18, no. 2 (February 8, 2006): 281–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1041610205002693.

Full text

Abstract:

Background and objectives: Cognitive screening is a “first step” in detecting dementia and other neuropsychiatric syndromes and hence represents an important public health and clinical initiative. A plethora of cognitive screening instruments has been advocated in recent years, but the extent to which these instruments are used or their effectiveness is not well known. An International Psychogeriatric Association (IPA) survey was designed to determine which cognitive screening instruments were used most frequently by clinicians with special expertise in the neuropsychiatric aspects of old age and also to determine the ones considered most useful by these specialists.Method: Under the auspices of the IPA, the survey was mailed in the fall of 2004 to all IPA members as well as members of the American and Canadian Associations of Geriatric Psychiatry. The survey inquired about demographic information, the frequency of use of cognitive screening instruments, and the value attributed to the cognitive screening instruments. Participants also had an opportunity to provide written commentary.Results: A total of 334 completed surveys were processed. The majority of respondents were geriatric psychiatrists (58%). Of the 20 different instruments that were listed on the survey, only six were selected as “routinely” or “often used” by the survey respondents. These instruments in declining order were: (1) the Folstein Mini-mental State Examination; (2) the Clock Drawing Test; (3) Delayed Word Recall; (4) the Verbal Fluency Test; (5) Similarities; and (6) the Trail Making Test. “Effectiveness” and “ease of administration” were the test characteristics most highly predictive of frequency of use. Open-ended comments highlighted patient factors that continue to provide challenges, including ethnicity/culture, language, education/literacy, and sensory impairment. Respondents concluded that “no single test is adequate.”Conclusions: Psychogeriatricians worldwide routinely use a relatively small number of brief cognitive screening instruments. Further evaluation is necessary as the need increases for cognitive screening guidelines that inform public health initiatives related to dementia and neuropsychiatric syndromes.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Wang, Shuu-Jiun. "Migraine Diagnosis: Screening Items, Instruments and Scales." Rinsho Shinkeigaku 52, no. 11 (2012): 901. http://dx.doi.org/10.5692/clinicalneurol.52.901.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Ekselius, Lisa. "Experiences with screening instruments for personality disorders." European Psychiatry 13, S4 (1998): 190S. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0924-9338(99)80212-0.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Zhou, Xianbo, and J. Wesson Ashford. "Advances in screening instruments for Alzheimer's disease." AGING MEDICINE 2, no. 2 (May 31, 2019): 88–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/agm2.12069.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Holmes, Ann M., Michael L. Parchman, and Hyeson Bang. "Patient preference for health status screening instruments." Family Practice 12, no. 1 (1995): 88–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/fampra/12.1.88.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

MACKNIGHT, CHRIS, ANNE BOYDON, and KENNETH ROCKWOOD. "Screening instruments for depression in elderly subjects." Age and Ageing 27, no. 3 (1998): 411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/27.3.411.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Boyd, R. C., H. N. Le, and R. Somberg. "Review of screening instruments for postpartum depression." Archives of Women’s Mental Health 8, no. 3 (September 5, 2005): 141–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00737-005-0096-6.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Peng, Kuan-Po, and Shuu-Jiun Wang. "Migraine diagnosis: Screening items, instruments, and scales." Acta Anaesthesiologica Taiwanica 50, no. 2 (June 2012): 69–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aat.2012.05.002.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

O’Caoimh, Rónán, Suzanne Timmons, and D. William Molloy. "Screening for Mild Cognitive Impairment: Comparison of “MCI Specific” Screening Instruments." Journal of Alzheimer's Disease 51, no. 2 (March 15, 2016): 619–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/jad-150881.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Stewart, Lydia A., and Li-Ching Lee. "Screening for autism spectrum disorder in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review." Autism 21, no. 5 (February 10, 2017): 527–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1362361316677025.

Full text

Abstract:

This review contributes to the growing body of global autism spectrum disorder literature by examining the use of screening instruments in low- and middle-income countries with respect to study design and methodology, instrument adaptation and performance, and collaboration with community stakeholders in research. A systematic review was conducted to understand the use of autism spectrum disorder screening instruments in low- and middle-income countries from studies published between 1992 and 2015. This review found that 18 different autism spectrum disorder screeners have been used in low- and middle-income settings with wide ranges of sensitivities and specificities. The significant variation in study design, screening methodology, and population characteristics limits the ability of this review to make robust recommendations about optimal screening tool selection. Clinical-based screening for autism spectrum disorder was the most widely reported method. However, community-based screening was shown to be an effective method for identifying autism spectrum disorder in communities with limited clinical resources. Only a few studies included in this review reported cultural adaptation of screening tools and collaboration with local stakeholders. Establishing guidelines for the reporting of cultural adaptation and community collaboration procedures as well as screening instrument psychometrics and screening methodology will enable the field to develop best practices for autism spectrum disorder screening in low-resource settings.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

O’Caoimh, Rónán, Maria Costello, Cliona Small, Lynn Spooner, Antoinette Flannery, Liam O’Reilly, Laura Heffernan, et al. "Comparison of Frailty Screening Instruments in the Emergency Department." International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 19 (September 27, 2019): 3626. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16193626.

Full text

Abstract:

Early identification of frailty through targeted screening can facilitate the delivery of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and may improve outcomes for older inpatients. As several instruments are available, we aimed to investigate which is the most accurate and reliable in the Emergency Department (ED). We compared the ability of three validated, short, frailty screening instruments to identify frailty in a large University Hospital ED. Consecutive patients aged ≥70 attending ED were screened using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Identification of Seniors at Risk Tool (ISAR), and the Programme on Research for Integrating Services for the Maintenance of Autonomy 7 item questionnaire (PRISMA-7). An independent CGA using a battery of assessments determined each patient’s frailty status. Of the 280 patients screened, complete data were available for 265, with a median age of 79 (interquartile ±9); 54% were female. The median CFS score was 4/9 (±2), ISAR 3/6 (±2), and PRISMA-7 was 3/7 (±3). Based upon the CGA, 58% were frail and the most accurate instrument for separating frail from non-frail was the PRISMA-7 (AUC 0.88; 95% CI:0.83–0.93) followed by the CFS (AUC 0.83; 95% CI:0.77–0.88), and the ISAR (AUC 0.78; 95% CI:0.71–0.84). The PRISMA-7 was statistically significantly more accurate than the ISAR (p = 0.008) but not the CFS (p = 0.15). Screening for frailty in the ED with a selection of short screening instruments, but particularly the PRISMA-7, is reliable and accurate.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Oduwole, O. O., and A. O. Ogunyemi. "Validity of the GHQ-30 in a Nigerian Medical Outpatient Clinic." Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 34, no. 1 (February 1989): 20–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/070674378903400106.

Full text

Abstract:

Basic mental health vital statistics are scarce in developing countries. Scarcer still are validated psychological survey instruments which can be used in these settings. A method of dealing with such scarcity is through the validation of instruments developed elsewhere. One such instrument is Goldberg GHQ-30. The 30-item General Health Questionnaire was used by the authors as a screening instrument for emotional disorder in a general medical outpatient clinic. The GHQ-30 misclassified 32.3% of the respondents, a majority of whom were false-positives. There is a tendency for the misclassified respondents to suffer from chronic physical ailments, and to be older. The GHQ-30 appears not to have high specificity (65%) and sensitivity (73%). The predictive value (53.3%) of a positive finding by this screening instrument in this population is also low. Informed consent was obtained from participating subjects.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

Larsson, Kjerstin, and Christina Nehlin. "Screening accuracy of brief alcohol screening instruments in a general hospital setting." Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 44, no. 6 (May 28, 2016): 599–603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1403494816651779.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Lee, Young Whee, Sung Ok Chang, Eun Suk Kong, Nam Cho Kim, Chun Gill Kim, Hee Kyung Kim, Misoon Song, Soo Yeon Ahn, Myung Ok Cho, and Kyung Sook Choi. "Comparison of Delirium Screening Instruments for the Elderly." Korean Journal of Adult Nursing 25, no. 6 (2013): 655. http://dx.doi.org/10.7475/kjan.2012.24.6.655.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Kim, Hyun-Kyoung, Hye-mi Choi, and Hyun-Jung Park. "A Systematic Review of Child Abuse Screening Instruments." Child Health Nursing Research 22, no. 4 (October 31, 2016): 265–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.4094/chnr.2016.22.4.265.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Lee, Dominic T. S., Alexander S. K. Yip, Helen F. K. Chiu, Tony Y. S. Leung, and Tony K. H. Chung. "Screening for postnatal depression: are specific instruments mandatory?" Journal of Affective Disorders 63, no. 1-3 (March 2001): 233–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0165-0327(00)00193-2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

Place, M. "The relative value of screening instruments in adolescence." Journal of Adolescence 10, no. 3 (September 1987): 227–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0140-1971(87)80001-5.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Spurred, B., B. Ayer, and N. F. Pacey. "The Inadequacies of Instruments Used for Cervical Screening." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 29, no. 1 (February 1989): 44–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-828x.1989.tb02875.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Pogany, Athena, and Martha Petersen. "What are the best screening instruments for PPD?" Journal of the American Academy of Physician Assistants 20, no. 7 (July 2007): 34–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01720610-200707000-00008.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Fein, Deborah, Diana Robins, and Marianne Barton. "Testing two screening instruments for autism spectrum disorder." Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 58, no. 3 (February 18, 2016): 314–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/dmcn.12974.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Reuland, D. S., A. Cherrington, G. S. Watkins, D. W. Bradford, R. A. Blanco, and B. N. Gaynes. "Diagnostic Accuracy of Spanish Language Depression-Screening Instruments." Annals of Family Medicine 7, no. 5 (September 1, 2009): 455–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1370/afm.981.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Mouthaan, Joanne, Marit Sijbrandij, Johannes B. Reitsma, Berthold P. R. Gersons, and Miranda Olff. "Comparing Screening Instruments to Predict Posttraumatic Stress Disorder." PLoS ONE 9, no. 5 (May 9, 2014): e97183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0097183.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Fulmer, Terry, Lisa Guadagno, Carmel Bitondo dyer, and Marie Therese Connolly. "Progress in Elder Abuse Screening and Assessment Instruments." Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 52, no. 2 (February 2004): 297–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52074.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Lee, Narim, Youngeun Hong, and Yeni Kim. "Screening Instruments for Autism Spectrum Disorder: Mini Review." Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association 58, no. 3 (2019): 192. http://dx.doi.org/10.4306/jknpa.2019.58.3.192.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

We offer discounts on all premium plans for authors whose works are included in thematic literature selections. Contact us to get a unique promo code!