INTRODUCTION: The Aging Male Symptoms' (AMS) scale was designed as a health-related quality of life (QoL) scale and standardized as a self-administered scale, first, to assess symptoms of aging (independent from those which are disease-related) between groups of males under different conditions, second, to evaluate the severity of symptoms/QoL over time, and, third, to measure changes pre- and post-androgen replacement therapy. The scale is in widespread use (17 languages currently available) and a recent review of methodological data documented good psychometric characteristics and ability as a clinical utility. This paper describes test characteristics of the AMS (positive and negative predictive values), taking two internationally established and published screening scales for androgen deficiency as the available standard. METHOD: A sample of 150 German males aged 40-69 years completed the AMS scale and two screening scales for androgen deficiency: the ADAM scale of Morley and colleagues and the screener of Smith and colleagues. The technique of a computer-assisted telephone interview was applied. RESULT: The comparison of the AMS with the two screening instruments for androgen deficiency showed sufficiently good compatibility despite conceptual differences. The AMS scale sufficiently predicted the results of the two screening instruments. A positive predictive value of 92% and a negative predictive value of 50% were found regarding the ADAM scale. The respective figures regarding Smith's screener were 65% and 49% for positive and negative predictive values, respectively. CONCLUSION: The AMS scale obviously measures a similar phenomenon as the two established and widely used screeners for androgen deficiency, although it was not developed as a screening instrument.
INTRODUCTION: The Aging Male Symptoms' (AMS) scale was designed as a health-related quality of life (QoL) scale and standardized as a self-administered scale, first, to assess symptoms of aging (independent from those which are disease-related) between groups of males under different conditions, second, to evaluate the severity of symptoms/QoL over time, and, third, to measure changes pre- and post-androgen replacement therapy. The scale is in widespread use (17 languages currently available) and a recent review of methodological data documented good psychometric characteristics and ability as a clinical utility. This paper describes test characteristics of the AMS (positive and negative predictive values), taking two internationally established and published screening scales for androgen deficiency as the available standard. METHOD: A sample of 150 German males aged 40-69 years completed the AMS scale and two screening scales for androgen deficiency: the ADAM scale of Morley and colleagues and the screener of Smith and colleagues. The technique of a computer-assisted telephone interview was applied. RESULT: The comparison of the AMS with the two screening instruments for androgen deficiency showed sufficiently good compatibility despite conceptual differences. The AMS scale sufficiently predicted the results of the two screening instruments. A positive predictive value of 92% and a negative predictive value of 50% were found regarding the ADAM scale. The respective figures regarding Smith's screener were 65% and 49% for positive and negative predictive values, respectively. CONCLUSION: The AMS scale obviously measures a similar phenomenon as the two established and widely used screeners for androgen deficiency, although it was not developed as a screening instrument.
Authors: Giovanni Corona; Giulia Rastrelli; Linda Vignozzi; Edoardo Mannucci; Mario Maggi Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2012-01-30 Impact factor: 3.285
Authors: Thomas G Travison; Rebecca Shackelton; Andre B Araujo; Susan A Hall; Rachel E Williams; Richard V Clark; Amy B O'Donnell; John B McKinlay Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: C Wang; E Nieschlag; R Swerdloff; H M Behre; W J Hellstrom; L J Gooren; J M Kaufman; J-J Legros; B Lunenfeld; A Morales; J E Morley; C Schulman; I M Thompson; W Weidner; F C W Wu Journal: Eur J Endocrinol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 6.664