SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Psychometric properties of a Norwegian adaption of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale-11 in a sample of Parkinson patients, headache patients, and controls.

Brain Behav · 2016-11-23

DOI: 10.1002/brb3.605PMID: 28127523

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

ObjectiveTo assess the psychometric properties of a Norwegian translation of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) for use in populations of headache, Parkinson's disease (PD), and healthy controls.Materials and methodsThe BIS-11 was forward and backward translated by native speakers of both Norwegian and English to give Norwegian BIS-11 (Nor-BIS-11). A convenience sample (110 subjects) of healthy controls (47), PD patients (43), and chronic headache patients (20) (the latter two recruited from a Neurology outpatient clinic), were asked to complete the scale (a subset twice for test-retest). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were done for a single-factor model, the original three-factor model and a two-factor model. Test-retest results were analyzed using the Bland-Altman approach.ResultsThe Nor-BIS-11 scale showed good utility and acceptability as well as good test-retest reliability in this sample. Cronbach's α was .68, test-retest bias was -0.73, Cohen's δ = -.134, and limits of agreement were -11.48 to 10.01. The factor structure was found to fit better with a two-factor model than with the original model with three factors. The model fit indices indicated a moderate fit.ConclusionsThe Nor-BIS-11 scale is acceptable and reliable to use in Parkinson's disease patients, chronic headache patients, and healthy controls. The results should be interpreted in a two-factor model but with caution due to low construct validity. External validity needs to be further tested.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.