User:Iitsmeshelby/sandbox

Lead section
The lead section gives a quick summary of what the assessment is. Here are some pointers (please do not use bullet points when writing article):

The BDDQ, or Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire is primarily used as a screening tool to assess the possible presence of Body Dysmorphic Disorder, or BDD. Created by Katherine Phillips in 2005, the BDDQ is a 12 question yes/no scale that asks the participant about his/her experiences with a preoccupation of detecting personal physical defects and the associated impairment in functioning that is typical of people with disordered eating and body dysmorphia. The BDDQ is used as a primary screening tool, but is not used to diagnose BDD as a follow-up interview is required for final diagnosis.
 * 1) Make sure to include a link to the "anchor citation"
 * 2) What are its acronyms?


 * 1) What has been its impact on the clinical world in general?
 * 2) Who uses it? Clinicians? Researchers? What settings?
 * 3) Using the Edit Source function, remove collapse top and collapse bottom curly wurlys to show content.

Steps for evaluating reliability and validity

 * 1) Evaluate the instrument by referring to the rubrics for evaluating reliability and validity (both external Wikiversity pages). For easy reference, open these pages in separate tabs.
 * 2) Reliability rubric
 * 3) Validity rubric
 * 4) Refer to the relevant instrument rubric table. This is the table that you will be editing. Do not confuse this with the external pages on reliability and validity.
 * 5) Instrument rubric table: Reliability
 * 6) Instrument rubric table: Validity
 * 7) Depending on whether instrument was adequate, good, excellent, or too good:
 * 8) Insert your rating.
 * 9) Add the evidence from journal articles that support your evaluation.
 * 10) Provide citations.
 * 11) Refer to the heading for the instrument rubric table ("Rubric for evaluating norms and reliability for the XXX ... indicates new construct or category")
 * 12) Make sure that you change the name of the instrument accordingly.
 * 13) Using the Edit Source function, remove collapse top and collapse bottom curly wurlys to show content.

Instrument rubric table: Reliability
Note: Not all of the different types of reliability apply to the way that questionnaires are typically used. Internal consistency (whether all of the items measure the same construct) is not usually reported in studies of questionnaires; nor is inter-rater reliability (which would measure how similar peoples' responses were if the interviews were repeated again, or different raters listened to the same interview). Therefore, make adjustments as needed.

Reliability
Not all of the different types of reliability apply to the way that questionnaires are typically used. Internal consistency (whether all of the items measure the same construct) is not usually reported in studies of questionnaires; nor is inter-rater reliability (which would measure how similar peoples' responses were if the interviews were repeated again, or different raters listened to the same interview). Therefore, make adjustments as needed.

Reliability refers to whether the scores are reproducible. Unless otherwise specified, the reliability scores and values come from studies done with a United States population sample. Here is the rubric for evaluating the reliability of scores on a measure for the purpose of evidence based assessment.

Validity
Validity describes the evidence that an assessment tool measures what it was supposed to measure. There are many different ways of checking validity. For screening measures, diagnostic accuracy and discriminative validity are probably the most useful ways of looking at validity. Unless otherwise specified, the validity scores and values come from studies done with a United States population sample. Here is a rubric for describing validity of test scores in the context of evidence-based assessment.

Development and history

 * Why was this instrument developed? Why was there a need to do so? What need did it meet?
 * What was the theoretical background behind this assessment? (e.g. addresses importance of 'negative cognitions', such as intrusions, inaccurate, sustained thoughts)
 * How was the scale developed? What was the theoretical background behind it?
 * How are these questions reflected in applications to theories, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)?
 * If there were previous versions, when were they published?
 * Discuss the theoretical ideas behind the changes.

The BDDQ was created in order to have a short, self-report screening tool for Body Dysmorphic Disorder. The questionnaire itself is not enough to yield a full picture of the possible BDD diagnosis, so the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Diagnostic Module for Adults (Phillips, 2005) was created to follow up the BDDQ use with an in-person interview administered by a clinician in order to confirm a diagnosis.

Impact

 * What was the impact of this assessment? How did it affect assessment in psychiatry, psychology and health care professionals?
 * What can the assessment be used for in clinical settings? Can it be used to measure symptoms longitudinally? Developmentally?

Use in other populations

 * How widely has it been used? Has it been translated into different languages? Which languages?

Research

 * Any recent research done that is pertinent?

Limitations

 * If self report, what are usual limitations of self-report?
 * State the status of this assessment (is it copyrighted? If free, link to it).

Scoring instructions and syntax
We routinely include scoring syntax in three major languages: R, SPSS, and SAS. All variable names are the same across all three (so we follow naming conventions that would work in any of them -- note that R is case sensitive), and all match the CSV shell that we provide as well as the Qualtrics export.

Hand scoring and general instructions


CSV shell for sharing
Please read this message before downloading the CSV shell.


 * 

Because we are sharing the scoring syntax, we also want to share a shell data file that you could use in your own research. If you use this file, or make sure that your own file uses the same variable names, then the scoring code we provide should do the basic scoring for you.

When different research projects and groups use the same variable names and syntax, it makes it easier to share the data and work together on integrative data analyses or "mega" analyses (which are different and better than meta-analysis in that they are combining the raw data, versus working with summary descriptive statistics).

Note that our CSV includes several demographic variables, which follow current conventions in most developmental and clinical psychology journals. You may want to modify them, depending on where you are working. Also pay attention to the possibility of "deductive identification" -- if we ask personal information in enough detail, then it may be possible to figure out the identity of a participant based on a combination of variables.

Syntax/code
R code goes here

R code goes here

R code goes here

Example page

 * General Behavior Inventory