These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Validation and Comparison of the Informant-Rated and Self-Rated Versions of the Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist.
    Author: Chen TH, Yeh YC, Huang MF, Chen HM, Lee JI, Chen CS.
    Journal: J Alzheimers Dis; 2022; 90(3):1203-1213. PubMed ID: 36213992.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: The Mild Behavioral Impairment Checklist (MBI-C) has been developed to assess mild behavioral impairment (MBI). However, no study has validated the use of MBI-C using a promising translation method in Taiwan. Thus, consistency and discrepancy between informant-rated and self-rated scores have not been extensively researched. OBJECTIVE: This study validated and compared the informant- and self-rated versions of the MBI-C among community-dwelling people in Taiwan. METHOD: We recruited 202 pairs of individuals without dementia aged ≥50 years and their cohabitating informants. The participants completed the MBI-C (MBI-C-self), and the informants completed the MBI-C (MBI-C-informant) and the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) independently. Internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, and convergent validity were examined. RESULTS: Both MBI-C-self and MBI-C-informant exhibited satisfactory Cronbach's α values (0.92 and 0.88, respectively). The MBI-C-informant total scorewas correlated with the NPI-Q total score (r = 0.83, p < 0.001). Inter-rater reliability between the two versions, as represented by the inter-rater correlation coefficient, was 0.57 (p < 0.001). The prevalence of MBI based on the MBI-C-informant scores was 1.5% higher than that based on the MBI-C-self scores according to the suggested cut-off score of 8.5. The affective dysregulation domain score of MBI-C-informant was significantly lower than that of MBI-C-self. CONCLUSION: MBI-C-informant exhibited both high reliability and validity. Discrepancies between MBI-C-informant and MBI-C-self related to the detection rates and affective dysregulation domain scores were noted. The level of consistency and discrepancy between these two versions provide implications for the use of MBI-C in clinical practice and future research.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]