Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23080483›Full record

ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2013

The reliability, validity, and applicability of an English language version of the Mini-ICF-APP.

Andrew Molodynski, Michael Linden, George Juckel, Ksenija Yeeles, Catriona Anderson, Maria Vazquez-Montes, Tom Burns

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrew MolodynskiSocial Psychiatry Group, Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7JX, UK. andrew.molodynski@oxfordhealth.nhs.uk
Michael Linden
George Juckel
Ksenija Yeeles
Catriona Anderson
Maria Vazquez-Montes
Tom Burns
University of Oxford · GBCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DERuhr University Bochum · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aimed at establishing the validity and reliability of an English language version of the Mini-ICF-APP.

methodsOne hundred and five patients under the care of secondary mental health care services were assessed using the Mini-ICF-APP and several well-established measures of functioning and symptom severity. 47 (45 %) patients were interviewed on two occasions to ascertain test-retest reliability and 50 (48 %) were interviewed by two researchers simultaneously to determine the instrument's inter-rater reliability. Occupational and sick leave status were also recorded to assess construct validity.

resultsThe Mini-ICF-APP was found to have substantial internal consistency (Chronbach's α 0.869-0.912) and all 13 items correlated highly with the total score. Analysis also showed that the Mini-ICF-APP had good test-retest (ICC 0.832) and inter-rater (ICC 0.886) reliability. No statistically significant association with length of sick leave was found, but the unemployed scored higher on the Mini ICF-APP than those in employment (mean 18.4, SD 9.1 vs. 9.4, SD 6.4, p < 0.001). The Mini-ICF-APP correlated highly with the other measures of illness severity and functioning considered in the study.

conclusionsThe English version of the Mini-ICF-APP is a reliable and valid measure of disorders of capacity as defined by the International Classification of Functioning. Further work is necessary to establish whether the scale could be divided into sub scales which would allow the instrument to more sensitively measure an individual's specific impairments.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationLanguageAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInternational Classification of DiseasesInterviews as TopicMaleMental DisordersMental Health ServicesMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CarePsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID23080483
OpenAlexW2169092436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.