Development of the Korean version of Postconcussional Syndrome Questionnaire.
- Author:
Mi Ri YOON
1
;
Young Hoon KO
;
Chang Su HAN
;
Sook Haeng JOE
;
Sang Won JEON
;
Chang Woo HAN
Author Information
1. Department of Psychiatry, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. korean@chol.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Postconcussional syndrome questionnaire;
Postconcussional syndrome;
Organic mental disorder
- MeSH:
Anxiety;
Anxiety Disorders;
Brain Injuries;
Delirium, Dementia, Amnestic, Cognitive Disorders;
Depression;
Epidemiologic Studies;
Gyeonggi-do;
Humans;
International Classification of Diseases;
Mood Disorders;
Personality Disorders;
Questionnaires*;
Reproducibility of Results
- From:Korean Journal of Psychosomatic Medicine
2015;23(1):26-35
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Postconcussional Syndrome Questionnaire(KPCSQ) which was originally developed in 1992 by Lees-Haley. METHODS: Patients with traumatic brain injury were recruited from April 2009 to December 2011 from the Korean University Ansan Hospital. We selected patients that met the ICD-10 diagnostic criteria of postconcussional syndrome and organic mental disorder including organic mood disorder, organic emotionally labile disorder, organic anxiety disorder and organic personality disorder. The KPCSQ, Trait and State Anxiety Inventory(STAI-I, II), and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale(CESD) were administered to all subjects. Factor analysis of the items were performed and test-retest correlation were evaluated. Internal consistency of the KPCSQ and its subscales was assessed with Cronbach's alpha. External validity of the KPCSQ were examined by correlation coefficient with the STAI-I, II, and CESD. RESULTS: The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the total PCSQ was 0.956. The test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.845. The PCSQ showed significant correlation with STAI-I, II and CESD. The factor analysis of the PCSQ yielded 4 factors model. Factor 1 represented 'affective and cognitive symptoms', factor 2 represented 'somatic symptoms', factor 3 represented 'infrequent symptoms' and factor 4 represented 'exaggeration or inattentive response'. There was no significant difference between the PCS group and the organic mental disorder group in the score on each measure. The scores on KPCSQ and its subscales in the subjects that had scored 5 or more in 'exaggeration or inattentive response' are significantly higher than those in the subjects had scored 4 in 'exaggeration or inattentive response'. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the Korean version of PCSQ is a valid and reliable tool for assessing psychiatric symptomatology of patients with traumatic brain injury. Further investigations with greater numbers of subjects are necessary to assess the clinical usefulness of the KPCSQ.
