The ESDQ: a new method of assessing emotional and social dysfunction in patients following brain surgery.
The Emotional and Social Dysfunction Questionnaire (ESDQ) has been designed to overcome some of the difficulties of inappropriately applying psychiatric based questionnaires to brain-damaged populations. Two-hundred and twenty-five patients were assessed following brain surgery (BS) using a self-rating patient version of the ESDQ and 211 of these patients were rated by their partner. A factor analysis using a varimax rotation and principal components analysis found the partner results to show eight factors including, Anger, Helplessness, Emotional Dyscontrol, Indifference, Inappropriateness, Fatigue, Maladaptive behaviour, and Insight. The analysis of the Self-rating questions revealed a similar profile, Anger, Emotional Dyscontrol, Helplessness, Inertia, Fatigue, Indifference, Inappropriate, and Euphoria. The scales based on the factors were subjected to discriminant analysis in which the BS patients were compared with a combination control group of neurosurgical outpatients and terminally-ill cancer patients, all of which were without cerebral complaints. The brain surgery results for the partner-rated and the Self-rated version of the ESDQ were compared with control ratings of 42 partners and 54 self-ratings, respectively. The analysis showed a significant discrimination for the Partner-rated version on each of the eight scales individually with an overall significant overall separation (Wilks Lambda=.903, chi=21.1, df=8, p=<.005). The Self-rated version showed less separation on an individual scale basis the Emotional Dyscontrol scale failing to show a significant separation. The overall difference on the Self-rating version was significant [Wilks Lambda=.908, chi=26.2, df=8, p=<.001). The levels of internal consistency of the questionnaire scales were found to be satisfactory (Alpha,.78 -.94). Also the relationship between ESDQ scales and standardised measures of aggression, anxiety, depression, and vigour (STAXI, HADS, and POMS) gave an indication of acceptable levels of concurrent validity.
Andrewes
David G
DG
Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. d.andrews@psych.unimelb.edu.au
Kaye
Andrew
A
Aitken
Sophie
S
Parr
Christine
C
Bates
Lisa
L
Murphy
Michael
M
D000328:Adult; D001927:Brain Diseases / Q000523:psychology / Q000534:rehabilitation* / Q000601:surgery; D004644:Emotions; D005163:Factor Analysis, Statistical; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D019635:Neurosurgical Procedures / Q000523:psychology*; D011569:Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012647:Self-Assessment; D012919:Social Behavior; D018454:Spouses; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires