Reliability and clinical utility of a Portuguese version of the Abnormal Involuntary Movements Scale (AIMS) for tardive dyskinesia in Brazilian patients.

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the reliability and clinical utility of a Portuguese version of the Abnormal Involuntary Movements Scale (AIMS). Videotaped interviews with 16 psychiatric inpatients treated with antipsychotic drugs for at least 5 years were evaluated. Reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between three raters, two with and one without clinical training in psychopathology. Clinical utility was assessed by the difference between the scores of patients with (N = 11) and without (N = 5) tardive dyskinesia (TD). Patients with TD exhibited a higher severity of global evaluation by the AIMS (sum of scores: 4.2 +/- 0.9 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2; score on item 8: 2.3 +/- 0.3 vs 0.4 +/- 0.2, TD vs controls). The ICC for the global evaluation was fair between the two skilled raters (0.58-0.62) and poor between these raters and the rater without clinical experience (0.05-0.29). Thus, we concluded that the Portuguese version of the AIMS shows an acceptable inter-rater reliability, but only between clinically skilled raters, and that it is clinically useful.

Reliability and clinical utility of a Portuguese version of the Abnormal Involuntary Movements Scale (AIMS) for tardive dyskinesia in Brazilian patients

The objective of the present study was to evaluate the reliability and clinical utility of a Portuguese version of the Abnormal Involuntary Movements Scale (AIMS). Videotaped interviews with 16 psychiatric inpatients treated with antipsychotic drugs for at least 5 years were evaluated. Reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between three raters, two with and one without clinical training in psychopathology. Clinical utility was assessed by the difference between the scores of patients with (N = 11) and without (N = 5) tardive dyskinesia (TD). Patients with TD exhibited a higher severity of global evaluation by the AIMS (sum of scores: 4.2 ± 0.9 vs 0.4 ± 0.2; score on item 8: 2.3 ± 0.3 vs 0.4 ± 0.2, TD vs controls). The ICC for the global evaluation was fair between the two skilled raters (0.58-0.62) and poor between these raters and the rater without clinical experience (0.05-0.29). Thus, we concluded that the Portuguese version of the AIMS shows an acceptable inter-rater reliability, but only between clinically skilled raters, and that it is clinically useful