BACKGROUND: Patients' perspectives concerning impaired functioning provide important information. AIMS; To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). METHOD: Data from two studies were analysed. Reliability analyses included internal scale consistency, test-retest and parallel forms. Convergent and criterion validities were examined with respect to disorder severity. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha measure of internal scale consistency ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Test-retest correlation was 0.73. Interactive voice response administrations of the WSAS gave correlations of 0.81 and 0.86 with clinician interviews. Correlations of WSAS with severity of depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms were 0.76 and 0.61, respectively. The scores were sensitive to patient differences in disorder severity and treatment-related change. CONCLUSIONS: The WSAS is a simple, reliable and valid measure of impaired functioning. It is a sensitive and useful outcome measure offering the potential for readily interpretable comparisons across studies and disorders.
BACKGROUND:Patients' perspectives concerning impaired functioning provide important information. AIMS; To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS). METHOD: Data from two studies were analysed. Reliability analyses included internal scale consistency, test-retest and parallel forms. Convergent and criterion validities were examined with respect to disorder severity. RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha measure of internal scale consistency ranged from 0.70 to 0.94. Test-retest correlation was 0.73. Interactive voice response administrations of the WSAS gave correlations of 0.81 and 0.86 with clinician interviews. Correlations of WSAS with severity of depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms were 0.76 and 0.61, respectively. The scores were sensitive to patient differences in disorder severity and treatment-related change. CONCLUSIONS: The WSAS is a simple, reliable and valid measure of impaired functioning. It is a sensitive and useful outcome measure offering the potential for readily interpretable comparisons across studies and disorders.
Authors: Malcolm Battersby; Peter Harvey; P David Mills; Elizabeth Kalucy; R G Pols; Peter A Frith; Peter McDonald; Adrian Esterman; George Tsourtos; Ronald Donato; Rodney Pearce; Christopher McGowan Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2007 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Kathleen D Lyons; Jay G Hull; Peter A Kaufman; Zhongze Li; Janette L Seville; Tim A Ahles; Alice B Kornblith; Mark T Hegel Journal: J Psychosoc Oncol Date: 2015-02-10
Authors: David Okai; Sally Askey-Jones; Michael Samuel; Sean S O'Sullivan; K Ray Chaudhuri; Anne Martin; Joel Mack; Richard G Brown; Anthony S David Journal: Neurology Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Sharon C Sung; Stephen R Wisniewski; James F Luther; Madhukar H Trivedi; A John Rush Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2014-11-22 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Charlene Bryan; Thomas Songer; Maria Mori Brooks; Michael E Thase; Bradley Gaynes; Michael Klinkman; G K Balasubramani; A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Maurizio Fava; Stephen R Wisniewski Journal: Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2009
Authors: Sarah Ring-Kurtz; Mary Beth Connolly Gibbons; John E Kurtz; Robert Gallop; Julie Present; Paul Crits-Christoph Journal: J Nerv Ment Dis Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.254
Authors: Jenna R Carl; Matthew W Gallagher; Shannon E Sauer-Zavala; Kate H Bentley; David H Barlow Journal: Compr Psychiatry Date: 2014-04-27 Impact factor: 3.735