1992
DOI: 10.1037/h0095727
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Disability Rating Form: A brief schedule for rating disability associated with severe mental illness.

Abstract: The psychometric properties o f the Disability Rating Form, a new instrument for rating disability associated with severe mental illness, were examined. Therapists participating in a large-scale evaluation o f community-based crisis intervention services twice rated consumers with regard to their disability in five areas o f functioning using the Disability Rating Form. Analyses o f ratings on the five-item instrument revealed excellent item characteristics, stability o f item ratings over a 2-to 4-month inter… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Psychiatric symptoms were measured by the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale, PANSS, Kay, Fiszbein, & Opler, 1987). Disability was measured with the Disability Rating Form (DRF, Hoyle, Nietzel, Guthrie, Baker-Prewitt, & Heine, 1992). Community adjustment was measured by the Multnomah Community Abilities Scale (MCAS, Barker, Barron, McFarland, Bigelow, & Carnahan, 1994 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Psychiatric symptoms were measured by the Positive and Negative Symptom Scale, PANSS, Kay, Fiszbein, & Opler, 1987). Disability was measured with the Disability Rating Form (DRF, Hoyle, Nietzel, Guthrie, Baker-Prewitt, & Heine, 1992). Community adjustment was measured by the Multnomah Community Abilities Scale (MCAS, Barker, Barron, McFarland, Bigelow, & Carnahan, 1994 ).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other scales, due to time requirements, are cumbersome to implement in community settings (Schooler et al, 1979;Wykes & Sturt, 1986). Still others were developed for a specific program, and do not have adequate psychometric properties, (Willer & Guastaferro, 1989;Hoyle et al, 1992) or they rely on self-report or informant ratings that make it difficult to establish reliability. Additionally, validity of the measures is often established by comparing functioning scores with level of service utilized.…”
Section: Functional Measuresmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…All five have been subject to Designed to rate disabilities associated with severe mental illness. Five items measure five areas of disability: activity of daily living, social functioning, concentration and task performance, adaptation to change and impulse control (Hoyle et al, 1992(Hoyle et al, , 1993.…”
Section: Hierarchical Criterion-based Assessment Of the Instrumentsmentioning
confidence: 99%