Semi-Structured Scale for the Functional Evaluation of Hemi-inattention

Overview

For the purposes of this review, we conducted a literature search to identify all relevant publications on the psychometric properties of the Semi-Structured Scale for the Functional Evaluation of Hemi-inattention as a measure of USN. Although easy to use, this tool has only minimal evidence of validity (Menon & Korner-Bitensky, 2004). More testing is required regarding the reliability and validity of the scale.

Reliability

Internal consistency (inter-item correlations): 
Zoccolotti et al. (1992) assessed the inter-item correlations of the scale and found that items within the personal subscale had adequate correlations ranging from r = 0.57 to r = 0.62, and items within the extra personal subscale had adequate correlations ranging from r = 0.44 to r = 0.71.

Test-retest:
No evidence.

Inter-rater:
Zoccolotti et al. (1992) found excellent inter-rater reliability for both the personal neglect items and extra personal neglect items of the scale (r = 0.88 and r = 0.96, respectively). However, in this study, raters underwent intense training, which may limit the generalizability of these findings.

Validity

Construct:
Concurrent:
Zoccolotti et al. (1992) assessed the concurrent validity of the scale by comparing correlations of the personal and extra personal subscales with performance on four standard diagnostic tests for USN: Line Cancellation Test, Letter Cancellation Test, Wundt-Jastrow Area Illusion Test, and Sentence Reading Test. The extra personal subscale correlated with each conventional test (kendall tau = -0.60; -0.52; 0.20; and -0.40, respectively). Performance on the personal subscale did not correlate with performance on these conventional tests. According to the authors, the failure of the personal subscale to correlate with conventional tests suggests that conventional and personal tests measure different dimensions of neglect. The personal subscale requires further validation.

Criterion:
No evidence.

Responsiveness

Zoccolotti et al. (1992) examined the responsiveness of the scale and found that the personal neglect subscale was not responsive to clinical change following rehabilitation; however the extra personal subscale was responsive to clinical change after rehabilitative treatment.

References
  • Byrne, D. (1967). Progressive Picture Compositions. Picture Set 1. Burn Mill, Harlow: Longman.
  • Menon, A., Korner-Bitensky, N. (2004). Evaluating unilateral spatial neglect post stroke: Working your way through the maze of assessment choices. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation, 11(3), 41-66.
  • Plummer, P., Morris, M. E., Dunai, J. (2003). Assessment of unilateral neglect. Phys Ther, 83(8), 732-740.
  • Tissot, J. il ballo sulla nave. Reproduction on canvas. Series: Maestri della Tavolozza, n. 1295 HH, Milano: Amilcare Pizzi.
  • Zoccolotti, P, Judica, A. (1991). Functional evaluation of hemineglect by means of a semistructured scale: personal extrapersonal differentiation. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 1, 33-44.
  • Zoccolotti, P., Antonucci, G., Judica, A. (1992). Psychometric characteristics of two semi-structured scales for the functional evaluation of hemi-inattention in extrapersonal and personal space. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 2, 179-191.