| Title |
The Mental Disability Military Assessment Tool: A Reliable Tool for Determining Disability in Veterans with Post-traumatic Stress Disorder
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, January 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10926-014-9563-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Andrea S. Fokkens, Johan W. Groothoff, Jac J. L. van der Klink, Roel Popping, Roy E. Stewart, Lex van de Ven, Sandra Brouwer, Jolanda Tuinstra |
| Abstract |
Purpose An assessment tool was developed to assess disability in veterans who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to a military mission. The objective of this study was to determine the reliability, intra-rater and inter-rater variation of the Mental Disability Military (MDM) assessment tool. Methods Twenty-four assessment interviews of veterans with an insurance physician were videotaped. Each videotaped interview was assessed by a group of five independent raters on limitations of the veterans using the MDM assessment tool. After 2 months the raters repeated this procedure. Next the intra-rater and inter-rater variation was assessed with an adjusted version of AG09 computing weighted percentage agreement. Results The results of this study showed that both the intra-rater variation and inter-rater variation on the ten subcategories of the MDM assessment tool were small, with an agreement of 84-100 % within raters and 93-100 % between raters. Conclusions The MDM assessment tool proves to be a reliable instrument to measure PTSD limitations in functioning in Dutch military veterans who apply for disability compensation. Further research is needed to assess the validity of this instrument. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 13% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 6 | 20% |
| Unknown | 5 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 30% |
| Psychology | 6 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 20% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2015.
All research outputs
#18,388,295
of 22,776,824 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#532
of 613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,378
of 352,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,776,824 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 352,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.