HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bannister, D. Articles by Beech, H. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bannister, D. Articles by Beech, H. R.

An Evaluation of the Feldman Prognosis Scale for Shock Therapy^*

Bexley Hospital, Kent

H. R. Beech, B.A., Dip.Psych., Ph.D., Lecturer in Psychology

Institute of Psychiatry, London

^* The authors' thanks are due to the Physician Superintendent, Dr. M. Radzan, and the medical staff of Bexley Hospital for assistance in compiling data for this study.

ABSTRACT

1. Thirty-three patients were given the Feldman Ps scale before shock therapy and rank ordered for their degree of improvement approximately six months after treatment. No significant relationship was found between degree of recovery and Ps scale scores.
   
2. Explanations of the varying validational fortunes of the Ps scale were suggested. The two primary factors thought to vary in relation to degree of discrimination found in the varying studies were diagnostic group/recovery rate proportions and the varying time interval between treatment and assessment of degree of recovery.
   
3. Comments were made on the possible psychological content of the Ps scale in the light of previous studies and a factor analysis carried out by the authors—the primary factors emerging concerned social hostility and social anxiety but only a small proportion of the variance was accounted for by identifiable factors.
   
4. Though the scale was not regarded as a proven clinical tool it is thought that further investigation was desirable and a broad experimental approach is outlined.