Turkish Standardization, Validity and Reliability Study of the Catherine Bergego Scale

Abstract

Purpose: In this study, it was aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the Catherine Bergego Scale (CBS) which is used to evaluate the neglect syndrome in daily life, by adapting it into Turkish. Material and Methods: A total of 30 volunteer patients aged 18 years and over with a right hemisphere lesion were included in the study. The National Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), Modified Rankin Scale (MRS), Clock Drawing Test (CDT), Line Bisection Test (LBT), Star Cancellation Test (SCT), CBS and CBS's anosognosia questionnaire were used as assessment tools. Results: In the exploratory factor analysis, it was observed that the factor loads for the scale items varied between 0.693 and 0.914. As a result of the reliability analysis, the Cronbach Alpha coefficient was calculated as 0.998 and the intra-class correlation coefficient was 0.996, and the scale was found to be highly reliable. Conclusion: The Turkish version of the scale is a valid and reliable measurement tool. The Turkish version of the CBS can be used in clinical and scientific research to evaluate neglect syndrome.

Keywords

• Standardization
• Stroke
• Validation

Catherine Bergego Skalasının Türkçe Standardizasyon, Geçerlik ve Güvenilirlik Çalışması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, ihmal sendromunu günlük yaşamda değerlendirmek için kullanılan Catherine Bergego Skalasının (CBS) Türkçe’ye uyarlama çalışması yapılarak skalanın psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Araştırmaya sağ hemisfer lezyonuna bağlı 18 yaş ve üzeri 30 gönüllü hasta dahil edildi. Ulusal Sağlık İnme Ölçeği (NIHSS), Modifiye Rankin Skalası (MRS), Saat Çizim (SÇT), Çizgi Bölme (ÇBT), Yıldız Silme Testi (YST), CBS ve CBS’nin anosognozi anketi değerlendirme aracı olarak kullanıldı. Sonuçlar: Açımlayıcı faktör analizinde ölçek maddeleri için faktör yüklerinin 0,693-0,914 arasında değiştiği görülmüştür. Güvenirlik analizleri sonucunda Cronbach Alpha Katsayısı 0,998 ve sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı 0,996 hesaplanarak ölçek, yüksek derecede güvenilir bulundu. Tartışma: Skalanın Türkçe versiyonu geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçme aracıdır. İhmal sendromunu değerlendirmek için CBS'nin Türkçe versiyonu klinik ve bilimsel araştırmalarda kullanılabilir.

Keywords

• İnme
• Standardizasyon
• Validasyon

References

1. Azouvi, P. (1996). Functional consequences and awareness of unilateral neglect: study of an evaluation scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 6(2), 133-150. doi:10.1080/713755501
2. Azouvi, P. (2017). The ecological assessment of unilateral neglect. Ann Physl Rehabil Med, 60(3), 186-190. doi:10.1016/j.rehab.2015.12.005
3. Azouvi, P., Bartolomeo, P., Beis, J. M., Perennou, D., Pradat-Diehl, P. & Rousseaux, M. (2006). A battery of tests for the quantitative assessment of unilateral neglect. Restor Neurol Neurosci, 24(4-6), 273-285. doi:17119304
4. Azouvi, P., Olivier, S., De Montety, G., Samuel, C., Louis-Dreyfus, A., & Tesio, L. (2003). Behavioral assessment of unilateral neglect: study of the psychometric properties of the Catherine Bergego Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 84(1), 51-57. doi:10.1053/apmr.2003.50062
5. Azouvi, P., Samuel, C., Louis-Dreyfus, A., Bernati, T., Bartolomeo, P., Beis, J.-M., et al. (2002). Sensitivity of clinical and behavioural tests of spatial neglect after right hemisphere stroke. J Neurol, Neurosurg Psychiatry, 73(2), 160-166. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.73.2.160
6. Brott, T., Adams Jr, H. P., Olinger, C. P., Marler, J. R., Barsan, W. G., Biller, J., et al. (1989). Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke, 20(7), 864-870. doi: 10.1161/01.str.20.7.864
7. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2002). Faktör analizi: temel kavramlar ve ölçek geliştirmede kullanımı. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 32(32), 470-483.
8. Gammeri, R., Iacono, C., Ricci, R., & Salatino, A. (2020). Unilateral spatial neglect after stroke: current insights. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat, 16, 131-152. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S171461

9. Gillen, R. W., Fusco-Gessick, B. M., & Harmon, E. Y. (2021). How we assess spatial neglect matters prevalence of spatial neglect as measured by the Catherine Bergego Scale and impact on rehabilitation outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 100(5), 443-449. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0000000000001710.
10. Goedert, K.M., Chen, P., Botticello, A., Masmela, J.R., Adler, U., & Barrett A.M.(2012). Psychometric evaluation of neglect assessment reveals motor-exploratory predictor of functional disability in acute-stage spatial neglect. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 93(1), 137–142. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.06.036.
11. Grattan, E. S., Skidmore, E. R., & Woodbury, M. L. (2018). Examining anosognosia of neglect. OTJR ( Thorofare N J), 38(2), 113-120. doi: 10.1177/1539449217747586
12. Kim, B. R., Jeong, E. H., Oh-Park, M., Lee, K., Kim, H., Yoo, S. D., et al. (2017). Reliability and validity of the Korean Kessler Foundation Neglect Assessment Process. Brain Neurorehabil, 10(2), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.12786/bn.2017.10.e10
13. Kılıç, S. (2016). Cronbach'ın alfa güvenirlik katsayısı. Journal of Mood Disorders, 6(1), 47-48.
14. Kutlay, S., Küçükdeveci, A. A., Elhan, A. H. & Tennant, A. (2009). Validation of the Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT) in patients with acquired brain injury in Turkey. Neuropsychol Rehabil, 19(3), 461-475. doi: 10.1080/09602010802445421
15. Lijiquist, D., Elfving, B., & Skavberg Roaldsen, K. (2019). Intraclass correlation – A discussion and demonstration of basic features. PLoS One, 14(7), e0219854. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0219854
16. Luukkainen-Markkula, R., Tarkka, I.M., Pitkanen, K., Sivenius, J., & Hamalainen, H. (2011). Comparison of the Behavioural Inattention Test and the Catherine Bergego Scale in assessment of hemispatial neglect. Neuropsychol Rehabil, 21(1), 103–116. doi:10.1080/09602011.2010.531619
17. Marques, C. L. S., Souza, J. T. D., Gonçalves, M. G., Silva, T. R. D., Costa, R. D. M. D., Modolo, G. P., et al. (2019). Validation of the Catherine Bergego Scale in patients with unilateral spatial neglect after stroke. Dement Neuropsychol, 13(1), 82-88. doi: 10.1590/1980-57642018dn13-010009
18. Plummer, P., Morris, M. E., & Dunai, J. (2003). Assessment of unilateral neglect. Phys Ther, 8(1), 732-740. doi:10.1093/ptj/83.8.732
19. Qiang, W., Sonoda, S., Suzuki, M., Okamoto, S., & Saitoh, E. (2005). Reliability and validity of a wheelchair collision test for screening behavioral assessment of unilateral neglect after stroke. Am J Phys Med Rehabil, 84(3), 161–166. doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000154902.79990.12.
20. Schenkenberg, T., Bradford, D. C., & Ajax, E. T. (1980). Line bisection and unilateral visual neglect in patients with neurologic impairment. Neurology, 30(5), 509-517. doi: 10.1212/wnl.30.5.509
21. Stone, S. P., Wilson, B., Wroot, A., Halligan, P. W., Lange, L. S., Marshall, J. C., et al. (1991). The assessment of visuo-spatial neglect after acute stroke. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry, 54(4), 345-350. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.54.4.345
22. Tavaszi, I., Nagy, A. S., Szabo, G., & Fazekas, G. (2021). Neglect syndrome in post-stroke conditions: assessment and treatment (scoping review). Int J Rehabil Res, 44(1), 3-14. doi: 10.1097/MRR.0000000000000438.
23. Van Swieten, J. C., Koudstaal, P. J., Visser, M. C., Schouten, H. J., & Van Gijn, J. (1988). Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke, 19(5), 604-607. doi:10.1161/01.str.19.5.604
24. World Health Organization (WHO). (2009). Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. Retrieved from the Web October 10, 2017. https://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/