Community Mental Health Journal

, Volume 52, Issue 8, pp 914–920 | Cite as

Integrating Scale Data and Patient Perspectives for Assessing Functionality in Schizophrenia

  • Isabel Benítez
  • Oscar Pino
  • José Luis Padilla
  • Amaya Cuevas-Parra
Brief Report


There is a growing body of literature devoted to evaluating functionality when planning the psychosocial rehabilitation of patients with schizophrenia. Until recently, psychological scales have been the predominant source of information, whereas patients’ perceptions about the most disruptive limitations on their daily life were not considered. The aim of this paper is to illustrate how the integration of the perspectives of patients and patients’ relatives improves the evaluation of functionality. A QUAN + QUAL design was implemented collecting quantitative data from Family APGAR and BELS scales, and qualitative information by conducting focus groups. The integration of results made it possible to understand the causes of problems reported by scales, as well as improving the information captured for helping to plan patient therapies. This mixed approach has provided a more comprehensive perspective of functionality, which will be helpful in improving quality of life of patients and their relatives.


Mixed methods Functionality Schizophrenia Family APGAR BELS 



The authors received financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness under the Research Support Programme (Project No. PSI2012-32275), and from the Andalusia Regional Government under the Excellent Research Fund (SEJ-6569, SEJ-5188).


  1. American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic criteria from DSM-IV-TR. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Pub.Google Scholar
  3. Austin, J. K., & Huberty, T. J. (1989). Revision of the family APGAR for use by 8-year-olds. Family Systems Medicine, 7(3), 323–327. doi: 10.1037/h0089774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellack, A. S., & Mueser, K. T. (1993). Psychosocial treatment of schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 19(2), 317–336. doi: 10.1093/schbul/19.2.317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Green, M. F., Kern, R. S., Braff, D. L., & Mintz, J. (2000). Neurocognitive deficits and functional outcome in schizophrenia: Are we measuring the “right stuff? Schizophrenia Bulletin, 26, 119–136. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033430.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Green, M. F., & Nuechterlein, K. H. (1999). Should Schizophrenia be treated as a neurocognitive disorder? Schizophrenia Bulletin, 25(2), 309–318. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a033380.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Leff, J., Trieman, N., & Gooch, C. (1996). The TAPS Project 33: A prospective follow-up study of long-stay patients discharged from two psychiatric hospitals. American Journal of Psychiatry, 153, 1318–1324.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Mauricio, J., Romero, N., Saa, H. A., Herrera, J. A., & Reyes-Ortiz, C. A. (2006). Prevalence of religiosity, family function, social support and depressive symptoms in old people. Revista Colombia Médica, 37(2 Sup. 1), 26–30.Google Scholar
  10. Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2005). On becoming a pragmatic researcher: The importance of combining quantitative and qualitative research methodologies. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(5), 375–387. doi: 10.1080/13645570500402447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. QSR International. (2012). NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version 10.Google Scholar
  12. Robles, R., Medina, R., Páez, F., & Becerra, B. (2010). Evaluación de funcionalidad, discapacidad y salud para la rehabilitación psicosocial de pacientes aislados por trastornos mentales graves. Salud Mental, 33(1), 67–75.Google Scholar
  13. Rosen, A., Hadzi-Pavlovic, D., & Parker, G. (1989). The life skills profile: A measure assessing function and disability in schizophrenia. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 15(2), 325–337.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Smilkstein, G. (1978). The family APGAR: A proposal for family function test and its use by physicians. Journal of Family Practice, 6(6), 1231–1239.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Velligan, D. I., Bow-Thomas, C., Mahurin, R., Miller, A. L., & Halgunseth, L. C. (2000). Do specific neurocognitive deficits predict specific domains of community function in schizophrenia? Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 188, 518–524. doi: 10.1097/00005053-200008000-00007.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Wolnitzki, L., Vargas, N., Cerón, C., Errázuriz, G., Fabres, J., Morales, J. C., et al. (1989). Social net in support of adolescents scholars: Its appraisal by Smilkstein APGAR test. Boletín Hospital San Juan de Dios, 36(3), 147–155.Google Scholar
  18. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isabel Benítez
    • 1
    • 2
  • Oscar Pino
    • 3
    • 4
  • José Luis Padilla
    • 2
  • Amaya Cuevas-Parra
    • 1
  1. 1.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of GranadaGranadaSpain
  3. 3.Benito Menni CASM HospitalBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.University of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations