Article citationsMore>>

R. Tandon, R. F. Devellis, J. Han, H. Li, S. Frangou, S. Dursun, J. N. Beuzen, W. Carson, P. K. Corey-Lisle, B. Falissard, D. N. Jody, M. J. Kujawa, G. L’italien, R. N. Marcus, R. D. McQuade, S. Ray, P. Van Peborgh and IAQ Validation Study Group, “Validation of the Investigator’s Assessment Questionnaire, a New Clinical Tool for Relative Assessment of Response to Antipsychotics in Patients with Schizophrenia and Schizoaffective Disorder,” Psychiatry Research, Vol. 136, No. 2-3, 2005, pp. 211-221. doi:10.101

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: A Modification of the Relative Weightings of Symptoms Utilizing a Logistic Function to Enhance the Linearity of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale: A Retrospective Analysis

  AUTHORS: Jitsuki Sawamura, Shigeru Morishita, Jun Ishigooka

  KEYWORDS: Evaluation Scale; Linearity; Weightings; Modification; BPRS; Schizophrenia

  JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, Vol.2 No.2, May 30, 2012

  ABSTRACT: Introduction: Although the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) is widely used for evaluating patients with schizophrenia, the meaning of the weights of the individual symptoms is ambiguous. The aims of the study were 1) to investigate whether the modification of relative weights of items of the BPRS is able to enhance its correlation with the Clinical Global Impression-Schizophrenia scale (CGI-SCH) and 2) to construct a potential modified BPRS. Methods: We evaluated 200 schizophrenia patients using the BPRS and the CGI-SCH and drew the scatter plot distributions of the two scales. Next, univariate regression for the CGI-SCH using individual symptoms of the BPRS was performed. Multivariate regression utilizing the ‘logistic function’ was then conducted to allocate marks to each item and Pearson’s r correlation coefficient and r-squared between the two scales were assessed. After that, we constructed an example of a potential modified BPRS. Results: With the scatter plot for the two scales, a logarithmic curve was obtained; this was described by [CGI-SCH] = 3.2248 × ln[18-item BPRS] – 7.2044 (p i” that could express the relative weights of individual symptoms. Subsequently, modification of point allocations according to “Pi” yielded a Pearson’s r of 0.8491 and an r-squared of 0.7718 (not changed) (both p