首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Hopes and Cautions for Instrument-Based Evaluation of Consent Capacity: Results of a Construct Validity Study of Three Instruments
【2h】

Hopes and Cautions for Instrument-Based Evaluation of Consent Capacity: Results of a Construct Validity Study of Three Instruments

机译:基于仪器的许可能力评估的希望与注意:三种仪器的构造有效性研究的结果

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Does instrument based evaluation of consent capacity increase the precision and validity of competency assessment or does ostensible precision provide a false sense of confidence without in fact improving validity? In this paper we critically examine the evidence for construct validity of three instruments for measuring four functional abilities important in consent capacity: understanding, appreciation, reasoning, and expressing a choice. Instrument based assessment of these abilities is compared through investigation of a multi-trait multi-method matrix in 88 older adults with mild to moderate dementia. Results find variable support for validity. There appears to be strong evidence for good hetero-method validity for the measurement of understanding, mixed evidence for validity in the measurement of reasoning, and strong evidence for poor hetero-method validity for the concepts of appreciation and expressing a choice, although the latter is likely due to extreme range restrictions. The development of empirically based tools for use in capacity evaluation should ultimately enhance the reliability and validity of assessment, yet clearly more research is needed to define and measure the constructs of decisional capacity. We would also emphasize that instrument based assessment of capacity is only one part of a comprehensive evaluation of competency which includes consideration of diagnosis, psychiatric and/or cognitive symptomatology, risk involved in the situation, and individual and cultural differences.
机译:基于工具的对同意能力的评估会提高能力评估的准确性和有效性,还是表面上的准确性会在不提高有效性的情况下提供一种虚假的信心感?在本文中,我们批判性地检验了三种工具的建构效度的证据,该工具用于衡量对同意能力至关重要的四种功能能力:理解,欣赏,推理和表达选择。通过对88位轻度至中度痴呆的老年人进行多特征多方法矩阵调查,比较了基于工具的这些能力的评估。结果发现变量对有效性的支持。似乎有很强的证据表明对理解的理解具有良好的异类方法效度,而在推理的度量方面则具有混杂的证据,而对于欣赏和表达选择的概念则有很强的证据表明异类方法的有效性较弱,尽管后者可能是因为极限射程限制。用于能力评估的基于经验的工具的开发应最终提高评估的可靠性和有效性,但显然需要更多的研究来定义和衡量决策能力的结构。我们还将强调,基于工具的能力评估只是对能力进行全面评估的一部分,其中包括对诊断,精神病学和/或认知症状的考虑,与情况有关的风险以及个人和文化差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号