The CIDI is a fully standardised, structured interview for the assessment of psychiatric disorders according to DSM-II-R and proposed ICD-10 criteria. The development of this interview has been the collaborative effort of researchers from 18 sites around the world. In a field trial to test the cross-cultural acceptability and reliability of the questions, there was found to be high acceptance and excellent reliability for the substance use questions, problems with the lengthy alcohol section, and difficulties translating relevant substance use concepts into different languages. There is therefore room for further improvement in the substance-related questions. There proved to be differences between ICD-10 and DSM-III-R regarding substance abuse and dependence disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cross-cultural validity of international Dutch-English comparisons when using the Dutch Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI), and the intra-test reliability and construct validity of the Dutch RMI. METHODS: Cross-cultural validity was studied in a combined data-set of Dutch and English patients undergoing rehabilitation after stroke, who were assessed with the Dutch version of the RMI and the original English RMI, respectively. Mokken scale analysis was used to investigate unidimensionality, monotone homogeneity model fit, and differential item functioning between the Dutch and the English RMI. Intra-test reliability and construct validity were studied in the Dutch patients by calculating the reliability coefficient and correlating the Dutch RMI and the Dutch Barthel Index. RESULTS: The RMI was completed for Dutch (n = 200) and English (n = 420) patients after stroke. The unidimensionality and monotone homogeneity model fit of the RMI were excellent: combined Dutch-English data-set (coefficient H = 0.91); Dutch data-set (coefficient H = 0.93); English data-set (coefficient H = 0.89). No differential item functioning was found between the Dutch and the English RMI. The intra-test reliability of the Dutch RMI was excellent (coefficient rho = 0.97). In a sub-sample of patients (n = 91), the Dutch RMI correlated strongly with the Dutch Barthel Index (Spearman's correlation coefficient rho = 0.84). CONCLUSION: The Dutch RMI allows valid international Dutch-English comparisons, and has excellent intra-test reliability and construct validity.

No / Survey results from 161 respondents trained in dementia care mapping (DCM) in the United States and United Kingdom (82 and 79 respondents, respectively) addressed the following: (a) To what extent are mappers using DCM? (b) How satisfied are mappers with DCM? (c) What affect does DCM have on mappers' attitudes toward their dementia practice? and (d) What challenges are encountered by mappers in the use of DCM? METHOD: Analyses using odds ratios were used to make international and training-level (basic vs. advanced) comparisons. RESULTS: Differences across countries were found in use of DCM and lack of satisfaction using DCM codes. Similarities were found with positive affects of DCM on attitudes and lack of time for DCM. DISCUSSION: Differences in mappers' experiences and perceptions exist across the two countries, warranting increased attention to the cultural contexts within which mappers are situated and how these affect the implementation of DCM within a country.

INTRODUÇÃO: a resiliência é um construto associado às características pessoais que permitem a um indivíduo adaptar-se e superar situações adversas. Uma pessoa mais resiliente é aquela com maiores habilidades de se adaptar sob estresse, a despeito da carga de dificuldades enfrentada e de um contexto desfavorável no entorno. A Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS-15) e a Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) tentam aferir a resiliência individual e já tiveram suas propriedades testadas em vários países da América do Norte, África, Europa e Ásia. OBJETIVO: traduzir, realizar a adaptação para o contexto cultural brasileiro e verificar a confiabilidade e a validade das escalas DRS-15 e CD-RISC. MÉTODO: uma metodologia com as etapas seqüenciais de tradução/retro-tradução/adaptação cultural/estudo de confiabilidade/estudo de validade foi utilizada. A adaptação cultural foi executada por um grupo de especialistas em epidemiologia, linguística, psiquiatria e tratamento da dor. A compreensão das versões culturalmente adaptadas foi testada com 65 pacientes adultos do grupo de avaliação pré-anestésica e do ambulatório geral de ansiedade do Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP. Retro-traduções das versões finais foram aprovadas pelos autores principais das escalas originais. O estudo de validade foi conduzido pela aplicação conjunta de ambas as versões brasileiras das escalas, do Inventário de Sintomas de Stress para Adultos de Lipp (ISSL), do Self-report questionnaire (SRQ), da escala de incapacitação de Sheehan (SDS) e da Escala Graduada de Dor Crônica (CPG-Br) a 575 pacientes e acompanhantes adultos da mesma população. A confiabilidade teste-reteste foi avaliada por uma segunda aplicação das escalas de resiliência a 123 participantes, entre 7 e 14 dias após a entrevista inicial. RESULTADOS: entre os participantes da fase de validação, a idade média foi de 44 anos (amplitude de 18-93), com predomínio de mulheres (74%), e média de dez anos de estudo. A maioria dos entrevistados (93%) pertencia aos estratos socioeconômicos B e C. Três fatores e quatro fatores foram identificados por análise fatorial exploratória para as versões da DRS-15 e CD-RISC, respectivamente. O coeficiente alfa de Cronbach foi de 0,71 para a DRS, e de 0,93 para a CD-RISC, indicando melhor consistência interna para a segunda. A confiabilidade teste-reteste retornou coeficientes de correlação intra-classe de 0,81 e 0,86 para a DRS e CD-RISC, respectivamente. A correlação entre as duas escalas foi de 0,52. Observaram-se correlações negativas significativas entre os escores das escalas de resiliência e os escores para cinco das seis dimensões do ISSL, assim como para com os escores do SRQ e SDS (p < 0,001). Não houve correlação entre as escalas de resiliência e a CPG-Br. A CD-RISC encontrou correlações mais fortes que a DRS para com as variáveis de comparação externa. As duas escalas discriminaram resiliência menor para os pacientes dos ambulatórios psiquiátricos, em comparação aos dos ambulatórios não-psiquiátricos. Entre os pacientes psiquiátricos, os escores de resiliência foram significativamente menores para os pacientes com transtorno Borderline de personalidade, em comparação aos pacientes com transtorno de estresse pós-traumático. CONCLUSÃO: propriedades de consistência interna, estabilidade temporal e validade foram satisfatoriamente demonstradas para as versões brasileiras da DRS e da CD-RISC em uma amostra de pacientes e acompanhantes adultos dos ambulatórios do Hospital das Clínicas de São Paulo / INTRODUCTION: Resilience is a construct related to the personal characteristics that allow an individual to adapt and overcome adversity. A more resilient person is the one that exhibits greater abilities to adapt under stress, despite the burden of difficulties and of an unfavorable context. The Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS-15) and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) are two scales to measure individual resilience, both of which have had psychometrics evaluated by researchers from the US, Africa, Europe and Asia. OBJECTIVE: To verify the reliability and validity of culturally adapted Brazilian Portuguese versions of the DRS-15 and CD-RISC. METHODS: The following stepwise methodology was used: translation / back translation / cultural adaptation / reliability study / validation study. Cultural adaptation was performed by an expert committee of epidemiologist, linguists, psychiatrist and pain specialists. Comprehension of the culturally adapted versions was tested through 65 interviews with adult patients from the pre-anesthetic consultation ambulatory and general ambulatory for anxiety disorders of Hospital das Clínicas of FMUSP. Back-translations of the culturally adapted versions were fully approved by the authors of the original scales. Validation studies were carried out by concurrent application of both the adapted versions of resilience scales, the Brazilian Stress Symptoms Inventory for Adults (ISSL), the Self-report Questionnaire (SRQ), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and the Chronic Pain Grade (CPG-Br) to 575 participants (outpatients and companions) from the same population. Test-retest reliability was studied by means of a second interview with 123 subjects, which took place between 7 and 14 days after the first one. RESULTS: Subjects of the validation phase were mostly women (74%), with an average of 44 years of age (18-93) and 10 years of formal schooling. There was a predominance of socioeconomic levels B or C (93%) on an A to E scale. Exploratory factor analyses resulted in a three-factor for the DRS and a four-factor solution for the CD-RISC. Alpha coefficients of 0.71 for the DRS and 0.93 for the CD-RISC indicated better internal consistency for the latter. Temporal stability was regarded as excellent, with intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.81 and 0.86 for the DRS and CD-RISC, respectively. Correlation coefficient between the two scales was 0.52. Significant negative correlations were observed between the scores of both resilience scales and five out of six dimensions of the ISSL, and so as between the resilience scales scores and those of the SRQ and SDS (p < 0.001). No correlation was observed between the resilience scales and the CPG-Br. The CD-RISC was more competent than DRS to depict such correlations. Both scales were able to discriminate differences in resilience scores of non-psychiatric and psychiatric patients, the latter presenting with lower scores. The group of borderline patients significantly presented with lower resilience scores in comparison with those of the post-traumatic stress disorder patients. CONCLUSION: Good reliability and validity were demonstrated with the Brazilian Portuguese versions of the DRS and CD-RISC as tested on a sample of adult ambulatory patients and their adult companions at Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo

In this study, the subject matter evaluated is the difference between the United States and Latin America concerning the practice and acceptance of servant leadership. This research compares the practice and the acceptance of servant leadership between the United States of America and Latin America. In order to do this, a cross-cultural comparison was conducted between these two groups. The objective was to find the differences in the leadership styles of these two groups and subsequently analyze the results. The Hofstede’s cultural dimensions were used to be able to compare cultural differences, and understand why these differences appear in the societies of the two groups studied. A survey was conducted in order to gather different feedback from individuals of the U.S. as well as from Latin America. The approach for this research started by analyzing the results of the survey and dividing it into the two cultural groups. The results were tested using a one tailed t-test for the mean difference of independent samples. This research provides information on how and why leadership styles differ between the two groups studied and what are the characteristics that people seek in leaders of these two groups when testing servant leadership between the U.S. and Latin American samples.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 339-357).

INTRODUÇÃO: a resiliência é um construto associado às características pessoais que permitem a um indivíduo adaptar-se e superar situações adversas. Uma pessoa mais resiliente é aquela com maiores habilidades de se adaptar sob estresse, a despeito da carga de dificuldades enfrentada e de um contexto desfavorável no entorno. A Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS-15) e a Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) tentam aferir a resiliência individual e já tiveram suas propriedades testadas em vários países da América do Norte, África, Europa e Ásia. OBJETIVO: traduzir, realizar a adaptação para o contexto cultural brasileiro e verificar a confiabilidade e a validade das escalas DRS-15 e CD-RISC. MÉTODO: uma metodologia com as etapas seqüenciais de tradução/retro-tradução/adaptação cultural/estudo de confiabilidade/estudo de validade foi utilizada. A adaptação cultural foi executada por um grupo de especialistas em epidemiologia, linguística, psiquiatria e tratamento da dor. A compreensão das versões culturalmente adaptadas foi testada com 65 pacientes adultos do grupo de avaliação pré-anestésica e do ambulatório geral de ansiedade do Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP. Retro-traduções das versões finais foram aprovadas pelos autores principais das escalas originais. O estudo de validade foi conduzido pela aplicação conjunta de ambas as versões brasileiras das escalas, do Inventário de Sintomas de Stress para Adultos de Lipp (ISSL), do Self-report questionnaire (SRQ), da escala de incapacitação de Sheehan (SDS) e da Escala Graduada de Dor Crônica (CPG-Br) a 575 pacientes e acompanhantes adultos da mesma população. A confiabilidade teste-reteste foi avaliada por uma segunda aplicação das escalas de resiliência a 123 participantes, entre 7 e 14 dias após a entrevista inicial. RESULTADOS: entre os participantes da fase de validação, a idade média foi de 44 anos (amplitude de 18-93), com predomínio de mulheres (74%), e média de dez anos de estudo. A maioria dos entrevistados (93%) pertencia aos estratos socioeconômicos B e C. Três fatores e quatro fatores foram identificados por análise fatorial exploratória para as versões da DRS-15 e CD-RISC, respectivamente. O coeficiente alfa de Cronbach foi de 0,71 para a DRS, e de 0,93 para a CD-RISC, indicando melhor consistência interna para a segunda. A confiabilidade teste-reteste retornou coeficientes de correlação intra-classe de 0,81 e 0,86 para a DRS e CD-RISC, respectivamente. A correlação entre as duas escalas foi de 0,52. Observaram-se correlações negativas significativas entre os escores das escalas de resiliência e os escores para cinco das seis dimensões do ISSL, assim como para com os escores do SRQ e SDS (p < 0,001). Não houve correlação entre as escalas de resiliência e a CPG-Br. A CD-RISC encontrou correlações mais fortes que a DRS para com as variáveis de comparação externa. As duas escalas discriminaram resiliência menor para os pacientes dos ambulatórios psiquiátricos, em comparação aos dos ambulatórios não-psiquiátricos. Entre os pacientes psiquiátricos, os escores de resiliência foram significativamente menores para os pacientes com transtorno Borderline de personalidade, em comparação aos pacientes com transtorno de estresse pós-traumático. CONCLUSÃO: propriedades de consistência interna, estabilidade temporal e validade foram satisfatoriamente demonstradas para as versões brasileiras da DRS e da CD-RISC em uma amostra de pacientes e acompanhantes adultos dos ambulatórios do Hospital das Clínicas de São Paulo / INTRODUCTION: Resilience is a construct related to the personal characteristics that allow an individual to adapt and overcome adversity. A more resilient person is the one that exhibits greater abilities to adapt under stress, despite the burden of difficulties and of an unfavorable context. The Dispositional Resilience Scale (DRS-15) and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) are two scales to measure individual resilience, both of which have had psychometrics evaluated by researchers from the US, Africa, Europe and Asia. OBJECTIVE: To verify the reliability and validity of culturally adapted Brazilian Portuguese versions of the DRS-15 and CD-RISC. METHODS: The following stepwise methodology was used: translation / back translation / cultural adaptation / reliability study / validation study. Cultural adaptation was performed by an expert committee of epidemiologist, linguists, psychiatrist and pain specialists. Comprehension of the culturally adapted versions was tested through 65 interviews with adult patients from the pre-anesthetic consultation ambulatory and general ambulatory for anxiety disorders of Hospital das Clínicas of FMUSP. Back-translations of the culturally adapted versions were fully approved by the authors of the original scales. Validation studies were carried out by concurrent application of both the adapted versions of resilience scales, the Brazilian Stress Symptoms Inventory for Adults (ISSL), the Self-report Questionnaire (SRQ), the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) and the Chronic Pain Grade (CPG-Br) to 575 participants (outpatients and companions) from the same population. Test-retest reliability was studied by means of a second interview with 123 subjects, which took place between 7 and 14 days after the first one. RESULTS: Subjects of the validation phase were mostly women (74%), with an average of 44 years of age (18-93) and 10 years of formal schooling. There was a predominance of socioeconomic levels B or C (93%) on an A to E scale. Exploratory factor analyses resulted in a three-factor for the DRS and a four-factor solution for the CD-RISC. Alpha coefficients of 0.71 for the DRS and 0.93 for the CD-RISC indicated better internal consistency for the latter. Temporal stability was regarded as excellent, with intra-class correlation coefficients of 0.81 and 0.86 for the DRS and CD-RISC, respectively. Correlation coefficient between the two scales was 0.52. Significant negative correlations were observed between the scores of both resilience scales and five out of six dimensions of the ISSL, and so as between the resilience scales scores and those of the SRQ and SDS (p < 0.001). No correlation was observed between the resilience scales and the CPG-Br. The CD-RISC was more competent than DRS to depict such correlations. Both scales were able to discriminate differences in resilience scores of non-psychiatric and psychiatric patients, the latter presenting with lower scores. The group of borderline patients significantly presented with lower resilience scores in comparison with those of the post-traumatic stress disorder patients. CONCLUSION: Good reliability and validity were demonstrated with the Brazilian Portuguese versions of the DRS and CD-RISC as tested on a sample of adult ambulatory patients and their adult companions at Hospital das Clínicas, São Paulo

Introdução: Indivíduos vítimas de traumatismo cranioencefálico (TCE) frequentemente apresentam sintomas pós-concussionais, que são manifestações somáticas, cognitivas, sensório-perceptivas, emocionais ou comportamentais. A síndrome pós-concussional (SPC) é caracterizada pela presença de três ou mais sintomas pós-concussionais, por período mínimo de três meses ou mais. Cerca de 30% dos pacientes que apresentam TCE leve e moderado desenvolvem a SPC. No Brasil, não existem instrumentos disponíveis para avaliar os sintomas pós-concussionais e diagnosticar a SPC. Objetivos: Este estudo teve como objetivo disponibilizar uma versão do Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire e do Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory para a cultura brasileira e avaliar suas propriedades psicométricas quando aplicados em pacientes que tiveram TCE leve ou moderado. Método: O processo de adaptação transcultural foi realizado de acordo com as etapas propostas na literatura: tradução, síntese das traduções, retrotradução, comitê de especialistas e pré-teste. As análises psicométricas compreenderam a avaliação da confiabilidade e validade. Uma amostra de 276 indivíduos de 19 a 87 anos, de ambos os sexos, que tiveram TCE leve ou moderado, respondeu os seguintes instrumentos: caracterização sociodemográfica e clínica, as versões brasileiras do Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ-Br) e do Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory (NSI-Br), o Inventário de Depressão de Beck I (BDI I) e o questionário de qualidade de vida WHOQOL-bref. A confiabilidade foi verificada por meio da consistência interna, utilizando-se o alfa de Cronbach. A validade de conteúdo foi avaliada pelo grau de concordância nos comitês de especialistas, utilizando-se o Índice de validade de conteúdo e o Coeficiente de validade de conteúdo. Foi verificado a validade convergente por meio da análise de correlação dos escores dos instrumentos validados com o escore do BDI I e o WHOQOL-bref. A validade de constructo foi verificada por meio da realização da análise fatorial exploratória e semi-confirmatória. Resultados: As versões adaptadas apresentaram evidências de equivalências semântico-idiomáticas, culturais e conceituais, com elevada aceitabilidade. Os achados evidenciaram um coeficiente de alfa de Cronbach de 0,918 para o RPQ-Br e de 0,966 para o NSI-Br. Foram constatadas correlações significativas de moderada a muito forte entre os escores dos instrumentos adaptados na avaliação de sintomas depressivos e qualidade de vida. A análise fatorial exploratória demonstrou que a estrutura de fatores é diferentes do que foi encontrado nos instrumentos originais. Os instrumentos RPQ-Br e NSI-Br apresentaram estruturas compostas por dois e três fatores respectivamente, com saturações significativas ( > 0,40) e explicando respectivamente 56,5% e 65,3% da variância total do constructo. Os resultados relativos ao ajuste do modelo foram, de forma geral, satisfatórios (RPQ-Br: Goodness of Fit Index(GFI)=0,968, Adjusted for degree of Freedom(AGFI)=0,957, Root mean square error of aproximation(RMSEA) < 0,05, Bentler\'s Comparative Fit Index(CFI)=0,974; NSI-Br: GFI=0,992, AFGI=0,989, RMSEA < 0,05, CFI=1,016). Conclusão: As versões brasileiras do Questionário Rivermead de sintomas pós-concussionais e o Inventário de sintomas neuropsiquiátricos foram adaptados transculturalmente para o português brasileiro, apresentando medidas psicométricas confiáveis e válidas / Introduction: After a traumatic brain injury (TBI) post-concussion symptoms (somatic, cognitives, emotional or behavioral) are commonly reported by patients. Post-Concussion Syndrome (PCS) is the term to describe the presence of three or more post-concussion symptoms for periods of minimum three months. Around 30% of patients with mild and moderate TBI have persistent symptoms. Currently, there is no instrument that has been created, adapted or validated for the Brazilian context that evaluates post-concussion symptoms. Objective: This study aimed to tcross culturally, and assess the psychometrics properties of the Brazilian versions of Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire and Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory in patients post mild and moderate TBI. Method: The cross-cultural adaptation consisted of the following steps: translation, synthesis of translations, back translation, expert committee, pre-test. The analysis of psychometric properties were reliability and validity. A sample of 276 patients, between 19 to 87 years, from both sexes, who suffered mild or moderate TBI, answered the following instruments: sociodemographic and clinical instrument, the Brazilian version of the Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire (RPQ-Br) and the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory (NSI-Br), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI I) and the World Health Organization\'s quality of life questionnaire WHOQOL-bref. The reliability was verified through internal consistency, using the Cronbach\'s alpha. The content validity was evaluated by the degree of agreement of the expert committee using the Content Validity Index, and the Content Validity Coefficient. The convergent validity was verified using the analysis of scores of the translated instruments with BDI I and WHOQOL-bref score. The construct validity was verified using the exploratory factor analysis and semi-confirmatory factor analysis. Results: The brazilian versions presented evidences of semantic-idiomatic, cultural and conceptual equivalences, with high acceptability. The results showed a Cronbach\'s alpha coefficient of 0.918 (RPQ-Br) and 0.966 (NSI-Br). There were a significant moderate to very strong correlations between the scores of the adapted instruments with the evaluation of depressive symptoms and quality of life. The factor analysis showed structure of factors different from the original instruments versions. The RPQ-Br and NSI-Br instruments had structures composed of two and three factors, respectively, with significant saturations ( > 0.40) and explaining respectively 56.5% and 65.3% of the total construct variance. The results regarding the fit of the model were generally satisfactory (RPQ-Br: Goodness of Fit Index(GFI)=0.968, Adjusted for degree of Freedom(AGFI)=0.957, Root mean square error of aproximation(RMSEA) < 0,05, Bentler\'s Comparative Fit Index(CFI)=0.974; NSI-Br: GFI=0.992, AFGI=0.989, RMSEA < 0.05, CFI=1.016). Conclusion: The cross-cultural adaptation was successfully performed and the Brazilian versions of the Rivermead Post Concussion Symptoms Questionnaire and the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory presented reliable and valid psychometric measures for use in the Brazilian culture