Ana Letícia Santos Nunes1, Alberto Filgueiras2, Rodrigo Nicolato3, Jussara Mendonça Alvarenga4, Luciana Angélica Silva Silveira1, Rafael Assis da Silva5, Elie Cheniaux1,6. 1. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Psiquiatria, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brasil. 2. Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Instituto de Psicologia, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brasil. 3. Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte MG, Brasil. 4. Hospital da Polícia Militar de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte MG, Brasil. 5. Universidade Federal do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brasil. 6. Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brasil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : This article aims to describe the adaptation and translation process of the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) and its reduced version, the Bush-Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument (BFCSI) for Brazilian Portuguese, as well as its validation. METHODS: : Semantic equivalence processes included four steps: translation, back translation, evaluation of semantic equivalence and a pilot-study. Validation consisted of simultaneous applications of the instrument in Portuguese by two examiners in 30 catatonic and 30 non-catatonic patients. RESULTS: : Total scores averaged 20.07 for the complete scale and 7.80 for its reduced version among catatonic patients, compared with 0.47 and 0.20 among non-catatonic patients, respectively. Overall values of inter-rater reliability of the instruments were 0.97 for the BFCSI and 0.96 for the BFCRS. CONCLUSION: : The scale's version in Portuguese proved to be valid and was able to distinguish between catatonic and non-catatonic patients. It was also reliable, with inter-evaluator reliability indexes as high as those of the original instrument.
OBJECTIVE: : This article aims to describe the adaptation and translation process of the Bush-Francis Catatonia Rating Scale (BFCRS) and its reduced version, the Bush-Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument (BFCSI) for Brazilian Portuguese, as well as its validation. METHODS: : Semantic equivalence processes included four steps: translation, back translation, evaluation of semantic equivalence and a pilot-study. Validation consisted of simultaneous applications of the instrument in Portuguese by two examiners in 30 catatonic and 30 non-catatonic patients. RESULTS: : Total scores averaged 20.07 for the complete scale and 7.80 for its reduced version among catatonic patients, compared with 0.47 and 0.20 among non-catatonic patients, respectively. Overall values of inter-rater reliability of the instruments were 0.97 for the BFCSI and 0.96 for the BFCRS. CONCLUSION: : The scale's version in Portuguese proved to be valid and was able to distinguish between catatonic and non-catatonic patients. It was also reliable, with inter-evaluator reliability indexes as high as those of the original instrument.