Factor analysis and validation of the Bush Francis catatonia rating scale-Spain version

• Francesc Serrat ^[4] ; Jorge Cuevas-Esteban ^[1] ; Luisa Baladon ^[2] ; Neus Rabaneda-Lombarte ^[3] ; Crisanto Díez-Quevedo ^[4] ; Maria Iglesias-Gonzalez ^[5]
  1. [1] Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

     Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

     Barcelona, España

     
  2. [2] Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu

     Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu

     San Baudilio de Llobregat, España

     
  3. [3] Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol

     Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol

     Barcelona, España

     
  4. [4] Departament Psiquiatria. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Servei Psiquiatria. Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain
  5. [5] Departament Psiquiatria. Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; Servei Psiquiatria. Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Badalona, Spain;Consorcio de Investigacion Biom edica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud P ublica (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain

  Mostrar afiliaciones +
• Localización: European journal of psychiatry, ISSN 0213-6163, Vol. 37, Nº 4, 2023
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpsy.2023.07.004
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Resumen

  • Background and objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Bush Francis Catatonia Screening Instrument and Bush Francis Catatonia Rating Scale Spain Version (BFCSI-SV and BFCRS-SV) using the ICD-11 and DSM-5 diagnostic criteria as well as other catatonia scales.

    Methods: One hundred patients were admitted to the inpatient psychiatry unit at Hospital Universitari Germans Trias I Pujol and two psychiatrists administered the BFCRS-SV to the first 10 patients to assess inter-rater reliability. The BFCRS-SV, BFCSI-SV, Modified Rogers Scale (MRS), Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scales, Barnes Akathisia Rating Scale, and Modified SimpsonAngus Scale were then employed.

    Results: The results showed that 27% of patients had catatonia using the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. Additionally, 51% of patients had 2 or more BFCRSI-SV items (Sensitivity: 100%; Specificity: 67.12%). The alpha coefficient values were 0.80 and 0.84 for the BFCSI-SV and BFCRSSV, respectively, and the intraclass correlation coefficient values were 0.902 and 0.903. The area under the ROC curve was 0.971 and 0.96, and the instruments had a strong positive correlation with the DSM-5 score, ICD-11 score, and MRS. The study identified a three-factor model comprising the inhibition, excitement, and parakinetic dimensions.

    Conclusions: Overall, the results suggest that the BFCSI-SV and BFCRS-SV are valid and reliable tools for the diagnosis of catatonia, especially when using a cut-off score of 5 or higher for the BFCSI-SV and 7 or higher for the BFCRS-SV.