ArticleNeuropsychopharmacology reports2022
Reliability and validity of the Arabic version of the biological rhythms interview of assessment in neuropsychiatry.
Article in Neuropsychopharmacology reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the biological rhythms interview of assessment in neuropsychiatry in the community: a large Chinese college student population.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Reliability and validity of the Arabic version of the biological rhythms interview of assessment in neuropsychiatry.Neuropsychopharmacology reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDisruptions in biological rhythm (BR) are considered a factor in the spread of many chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, and depression. It has been shown that imbalance in BR disrupts the body's physiological timings; therefore, it is essential to have a tool for BR evaluation.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on a sample of 403 Jordanian participants (200 depressed people and 203 control groups). Classical test theory (CTT) was used to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Arabic version of BRIAN. We aimed to validate the Arabic version of Biological Rhythms Interview Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (BRIAN) by investigating its internal consistency and validity, assessing its factor structure, and exploring its relationships with depression and sleep disorders.
resultsThe internal consistency (α) was 0.91. The concurrent validity was supported by the severity of depression and sleep disorders (r = 0.87, r = 0.83, p < 0.001). The BRIAN's ability to differentiate between depressed people and the control group supported its discriminant validity (t = 21.2, p = 0.001). With a sensitivity of 75 and a specificity of 95.57, BRIAN revealed good accuracy in distinguishing between depressed and non-depressed persons at cutoff 44. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) analyses supported its proposed three-factor solutions.
conclusionsThe results demonstrated that the BRIAN-A has acceptable validity in detecting BR and could be useful in examining the impact of circadian disturbance on the Arabic population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.