ā†“ Skip to main content

Validation of the clutter image rating (CIR) scale among psychiatric outpatients in Singapore

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of the clutter image rating (CIR) scale among psychiatric outpatients in Singapore
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-1125-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vathsala Sagayadevan, Ying Wen Lau, Clarissa Ong, Siau Pheng Lee, Siow Ann Chong, Mythily Subramaniam

Abstract

The Clutter Image Rating (CIR) Scale though extensively used to assess hoarding behavior, has mainly been validated in Western populations. The current study sought to validate the CIR in a sample of psychiatric outpatients (nā€‰=ā€‰500) in Singapore. Convergent and divergent validity as well as inter-observer reliabilities between participant CIR and interviewer-rated CIR were calculated. The CIR performed fairly in identifying participants with and without hoarding problems according to the Savings Inventory Revised (SI-R). The CIR composite demonstrated good convergent validity with the SI-R clutter subscale, the SI-R total and the Activities of Daily Living Scale for Hoarding (ADL-H) scale and discriminant validity with the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire - Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF) scale. Findings add valuable knowledge to the utility of the CIR in an Asian population.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Other 2 8%
Lecturer 1 4%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 9 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 6 25%
Social Sciences 4 17%
Neuroscience 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Unknown 11 46%