J Clin Pharmacol
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and the Journal of New Drugs, 1969; 9:83-90
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frosch, W. A.
Right arrow Articles by Friedhoff, A. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Frosch, W. A.
Right arrow Articles by Friedhoff, A. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Statistical Evaluation of the Treatment Response Assessment Method (TRAM) for Psychiatric Disorders

William A. Frosch M.D.1, Leon J. Hekimian M.D.2, Kenneth M. Warwick Ph.D.2, and Arnold J. Friedhoff M.D.2

1 Center for the Study of Psychotic Disorders, Department of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, and Bellevue Hospital, Psychiatric Division, New York, N.Y.
2 Center for the Study of Psychotic Disorders, Department of Psychiatry, New York University School of Medicine, and Bellevue Hospital, Psychiatric Division, New York, N.Y.

Two hundred patients were seen in a brief mental status interview by two psychiatrists. Independent ratings were made on the Global Illness, Incapacitance, and Symptom Scales of the Treatment Response Assessment Method (TRAM). From these scales it is possible to obtain (1) a global evaluation of the patients, (2) a measure of social adaptability, and (3) a profile of symptoms. Computation of correlation coefficients suggests that the raters achieved a satisfactory degree of reliability in their ratings. Analysis of variance suggested that the raters became more consistent with increased experience. With a decrease in various forms of rater bias, experienced raters tended to see the items as independent of one another. Principal Components Analysis yielded seven factors which appear to be empirically significant.

These analyses suggest that the TRAM can be used by experienced raters in a reliable and consistent fashion and that it differentiates between different types of patients. Although raters agree about the degree of pathology, individual differences in rating style, inherent in any rating style, do not disappear. This scale has the particular advantage of being applicable to a large number of patients because it requires only a brief mental status exam. Little training of the raters is required because the interview is based upon the classic mental status examination. Furthermore, use of the TRAM in a series of drug evaluations3-8 has shown that it is a useful and valid measure of behavioral change.

The TRAM has limitations: it tends to reflect rating style of the rater as well as pathology of the patient; certain nuances of the patient’s state are not always reflected by the ratings; and difficulties in rating may occur when the patient’s subjective state appears to differ from his objective behavior.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1969 by the American College of Clinical Pharmacology