Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS): A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS): A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties
Do you wish to request the book?
Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS): A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms (CAINS): A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties
2024
Overview
Background and Hypothesis
Negative symptoms are very important for the overall loss of functioning observed in patients with schizophrenia. There is a need for valid tools to assess these symptoms.
Study Design
We used the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) systematic review guideline to evaluate the quality of the clinical assessment interview for negative symptoms (CAINS) as a clinician-rated outcome measurement (ClinROM).
Study Results
The search strategy resulted in the retrieval of 13 articles, 11 of which were included in this evaluation. In terms of risk of bias, most articles reported on measures of internal consistency and construct validity, which were overall of good quality. Structural validity, reliability, measurement error, and cross-cultural validity were reported with less than optimum quality. There was a risk of bias in ClinROM development. According to the updated criteria of good measurement properties, structural validity, internal consistency, and reliability showed good results. In contrast, hypothesis testing was somewhat poorer. Results for cross-cultural validity were indeterminate. According to the updated GRADE approach from the COSMIN group the scale received a moderate grade.
Conclusions
The COSMIN standard allows a judgment of the CAINS as an instrument with the potential to be recommended for use, but which requires further research to assess its quality, in particular in the domains of content validity, internal consistency, and cross-cultural validity.
Publisher
Oxford University Press
