Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hopkins Symptom Checklist (1974) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Syeda Mahnoor
    63 views15 pages

    Original Title

    Hopkins Symptom Checklist (1974) (1).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    63 views15 pages

    Hopkins Symptom Checklist (1974) PDF

    Uploaded by

    Syeda Mahnoor

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 15
    27 Hopkins 53 pron checklist (H3eL) THE HOPKINS SYMPTOM CHECKLIST (HSCL): ‘A SELF-REPORT SYMPTOM INVENTORY’ by Leonard R. Derogatis; Ronald S, Lipman? Karl Rickelss B. H. Cilenhuth,’ and Lino Covi® ‘This report describes the historical evolution, development, le and validation of the Hopkins S Checklist (HSCL', "ue HSCL Is comprised of hich are representative of the symptom ct ‘commen observed amon! te Tels 5 ‘been identified in repeated factor analsses, A series Of studies have established the f torial sowariance of the primary symptom dimensions, and substantial evidence is given in support of their constract validity. Normative data in terms of both discrete symptoms SniPpcimary symptom dimensions are precented on 2.500 subjects—-1.800 psychiatric out~ putichts and 700 nornials, Indices of pathology reflect both intensity of distress and preva. Fence of symptoms in the normative samples. Standard indices of scale reliability are presented, and e broad range of criterion-related validity studies, in particular an im: Portant series reflecting sensitivity to treatment with psychotherapeutic drugs. are re Hlewed and discussed. ne NEED to expedite the processing of person direetly experiencing the phenom. large numbers of men for military serv- ena, ie, the patient himself. All other ob during World War I led Robert Wood- servers ‘ure limited to reporting apparent fh to develop a procedure whereby each versions of the patient’s experience, based “This on his behavior and verbal response. A second advantage of the self-report iiiode involves economy of profestonsl tine Administration, scoring, and initial us sessment of the data often can be accom: plished by paramedieal or psychometric Ps technician with # minimum of specialized ‘The self-report mode of psychological training or clinical experience, The sel measurement possesses several unique ehar- report inventory may’ be used as a sercening acteristics to recommend it, ax well as 4 deviee to aid in determining those who re- number of inherent limitations. In the area quire professional time, and may: be utilized if psychopathology, the self-report mode can by the clinician as an additional source of in provide exclusive information that is imply formation regarding the presenting status of ‘unavailable through the patient els, Self-report se uuvantage of reflecting information vis the Inventories are also highly ‘Shapiro ofthe Paye-Whitney Cline for geaciously matings HSC ‘available {rom their patient sem : Sehiol Mental H versity NIH a Meal quests for Tei pkins Uni oe sent to fine Hopkins Cui. Leonard KR, Derogatis, Department of Psychiatry fe dats reported in and Behavioral Seiences, Johns Hopkins Unive jodi sity.Sehoul of Medicine, Baltimore, Msryfanl sy Research Branch, Na al eat. “Medicine, University of Pennsyt lear aphreenation vo Mle Liter ‘Fisher, Mise Bridget Witvehberger provided ‘techiieal + Sebi assistance ou the project. In particular, the au> yang. thors ate grateful to Dr, Alberto DiMaeci School af Medieine, University of Chicago. Boston Stete Hospital, Dr Gerald 1, Kleen of ¢Sehuod of Medieiue, Johns Hopkins Uni. the Harvard Medical Schuol, and Dr, Arthur versity 1 2 Denogans, Linuas, Rickens, Cauesauni, axp Covt amenable to actuarial methods ng Donald, 1965). Further, in those instan (Mochi d& Dahlstrom, 1900), and data aris where specific attributes anv precisel ing from such measitres may be easily in fined in a common manner for both pat eurporated within elinical decision ¥ystems Dbsvrver alike, thee Fowler, 1980; Glueck & Stroebe, 196). In of significant agreement bet audition, symptom sf mesures ubserver and th f havi: been shown to be highly seasitive Schwab, Bison, & m wide-range of treatment modalities, Barlow, & Aw Wilde (1972) has recently cautioned that in adopting the self-report mode one tacitly assumes the validity of the inventory prem: ise: that is to say that the patient can and | will aceurately deseribe his relevant symp: toms and behaviors. A number of studies have indicated that this may not always be the ease, In particular, the question of re sponse sets as a potentially distorting in: Aluence in self-report has often been raised, The most frequently mentioned bias in this regard is that of social desirability. (Ed- wards, 1957). A number of other specific re 2, acquiescence, have been postulated as systematie sources of varia. tion affecting the accuracy uf solf-assess ments. It should be noted, however, that with the exception of social desirability, a number of ezitieal assessments (Rorer, 1963) have failed to sustain the contention that response sets play a salient role in clinically sented self-report scales. Even social de- sirability has been observed to function in complex and selective manner (Norman, having a stronger influence in the ages. sponse sets, 6 fated with social traits, once alte Fisko, 1 enee (W ‘view social des ment construct. Beyond response sets, there are @ number of other potential problems associsted with self-report, One issue is the extent to wheh characteristic defenses or personal inve ‘ment in treatment may funetion to dist patients self-evaluutions, Another diffieulty Involves the ae! {reports from acutely disturbed patients. The desire to please the doetor is confounding. Ts ). There is also convineing evi gins, 1964) that itis unrealistie to ability as au | another potential souree of hould be realized, however, hat alternatives to patient self-report, i. elinieal are also pen te serious bias (Cooper, Kendall, Gurland, Sartoris, & Fark, 1960; Lehinan, Ban, & While it is ob ventory posses also clear that it provid ns that the sell-repart i ss certain limitations, it is uuniqu tion to our understanding of psvehilo disorders, It is the most frequently obsere ‘means of operationally defining normality ¥ abnormality found in the literature (Soot 168), and in addition, validity of self-report is very high 150). Final Ublenhuth, Lipman. Chassan, Hines, and MeNair (1970) have taken care to illustrate, when int. cused on the outpatient tient’s opinion with all its. bia most relevant for the initiation and main tenance of treatment. DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF THE HSCL The Hopkins Symptom Cheeklist (HSCL, is a self-report symptom rating seale which ‘eral major Fe and has undergone si numerous minor alterations taken from a seale It was developed primarly The HSCL was first utilized as measure in psychotropic drug t1 man, Cole, Park and Riekels (1965; Ublénhuth and his and by wintes (Uhlenhuth, Rickels, Fisher, Park, Lipman, & Mock, 1966). These investigators employed a sub antially revised and enlarged version of the instrument, termed the

    You might also like