↓ Skip to main content

Inter‐rater reliability of the Hayes Ability Screening Index in a sample of Australian prisoners

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Inter‐rater reliability of the Hayes Ability Screening Index in a sample of Australian prisoners
Published in
Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, May 2015
DOI 10.1111/jir.12198
Pubmed ID
Authors

J T Young, K van Dooren, N G Lennox, T G Butler, S A Kinner

Abstract

Reliable ascertainment of intellectual disability (ID) is important to identify those with special needs, in order for those needs to be met in the criminal justice system. Although the Hayes Ability Screening Index (HASI) is valid and widely used for the identification of possible ID, the risk of inter-rater bias between researchers when scoring the HASI has not yet been established. The current paper estimates the inter-rater reliability of the HASI in a sample of Indigenous and non-Indigenous prisoners in Western Australia. We estimated intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) for the consistency of agreement among three blinded raters using a two-way random-effects model assessing the inter-rater agreement of the HASI. Kappa was also estimated for the dichotomous HASI screening threshold outcome between the raters. The HASI exhibited very good within-subject consistency of agreement for Section B (ICC = 0.95; 95%CI:0.94-0.96), Section C (ICC = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.96-0.98) and Section D (ICC = 0.90; 95%CI: 0.87-0.92) subscales and for the total scaled score (ICC = 0.97; 95%CI: 0.96-0.98). The inter-rater reliability of the dichotomous adult ID screening threshold (<85) was also very good (Kappa = 0.95). The current study provides new evidence that the HASI has a low risk of bias from between-rater scoring and can be reliably scored by both non-clinicians and clinicians with little training, when administered in prison settings. Pre-scoring training should focus on the more subjective 'clock-drawing' section, in order to maximise inter-rater reliability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Lecturer 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 41%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 9%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 9 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 24 January 2017.
All research outputs
#7,013,982
of 24,417,958 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
#532
of 1,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#78,794
of 270,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,417,958 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
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 270,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.