French adaptation, concurrent validation and factorial analysis of the Bech and Rafaelsen melancholia scale

33 depressive patients diagnosed major depressive episode (DSM III) have been assessed by the French translation of the melancholia scale of Bech and Rafaelsen and the following scales: scale of depressive retardation (ERD) (Widlocher), Hamilton depression rating scale with 26 items (HDS 26), Montgomery and Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS). A concurrent validation shows that Bech-Rafaelsen melancholia scale is valid. A principal components analysis with VARIMAX rotation found 4 principal components: retardation and blunted affect, asthenia, anxiety, suicidal impulses.     

The child posttraumatic stress disorder checklist in a sample of South african youth: establishing factorial validity

ABSTRACT: To address the diverse health effects of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in youth, reliable and valid screening and diagnostic instruments that can be adapted to the specific context in which they are used, are required. Here, we assessed the psychometric properties (factorial validity, concurrent validity, and internal consistency) of the Child PTSD Checklist in treatment-seeking youth using secondary data. The scale demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.93). Exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor structure (anxiety and avoidance, anger and dissociation, and depressive symptoms) that accounted for 41.9% of the total variance. Concurrent validity was fair between the Child PTSD Checklist and the diagnostic Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, Present and Lifetime version when assessing for PTSD. The Child PTSD Checklist seems to be a promising tool for assessing PTSD in trauma-exposed youth in clinic settings. However, further studies are needed to address the checklist's broader utility.     

The Japanese version of the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire: its reliability and validity for lifetime depression in a working population

We have developed a Japanese version of the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ), devised by Blatt et al., for assessing depression-prone personality and examined the questionnaire's reliability (test-retest reliability and internal consistency) and validity. To examine the questionnaire's validity, we evaluated its factorial validity and discriminant power for depression (i.e., construct validity). To test the construct validity of the DEQ with and without depression proneness, the scores on the DEQ subscales were compared between subjects with and without a lifetime history of major depressive disorder (MDD). The Inventory to Diagnose Depression, Lifetime version (IDDL), was used to identify lifetime depression. The reliability tests showed that the Japanese version has reliability almost similar to that of the original version. While the self-criticism has good reliability, the dependency appears to have only modest reliability. In the comparisons between subjects with and without lifetime histories of major depression, the former had significantly higher scores on the self-criticism dimension of the DEQ than did the latter, suggesting that the Japanese version of the DEQ, especially the self-criticism, may have the ability to distinguish individuals with lifetime depression from normal controls. We conclude that the DEQ is an acceptable instrument for assessing the depression-prone personality.     

Reliability and validity of the Italian version of the Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised in an outpatient sample

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised (TCI-R) in an outpatient sample. METHOD: The TCI-R was administered to 404 consecutively admitted subjects. The TCI-R scale 1-month test-retest reliability and TCI-R/TCI convergent validity were assessed in 2 independent subsamples. RESULTS: The TCI-R scales showed adequate Cronbach alpha values and acceptable 1-month test-retest reliability coefficients. Although many TCI-R facets showed factorial complexity, factor analysis results were consistent with the 7-factor structure of the TCI-R scales. The predictive validity of TCI-R profiles for personality disorder diagnoses was confirmed, with different combinations of temperament dimensions being associated with specific personality disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The TCI-R was a reliable and valid instrument for assessing temperament and character features, at least among Italian outpatients. The TCI-R psychometric properties support its clinical usefulness in the assessing of personality psychopathology.     

The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology: German translation and psychometric validation

The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) is a rating scale for depression, widely used in international multicentre studies. There are two corresponding versions: a self-rated (IDS-SR) and a clinician-rated (IDS-C) scale. The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the German versions of the IDS-SR and IDS-C in comparison to the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) and to the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). The sample consisted of 59 inpatients and outpatients treated for unipolar or bipolar disorders. Internal consistency of the IDS-SR and IDS-C was found highly acceptable (alpha = 0.94 and alpha = 0.93). Item-total-correlations of the IDS-SR revealed that 68% of the items were strongly correlated with the sum score (> or =0.50). This was in the same range with the IDS-C (54%), the HRSD (53%) and the BDI (76%). Furthermore, there is a high concurrent validity (r > or = 0.88) of the IDS-SR with the IDS-C, the BDI and the HRSD. Substantial score-differences between inpatients and outpatients indicate a good discriminant validity. It is concluded that the German version of the IDS is a useful instrument for the assessment of depressive symptoms and that it has the same highly acceptable psychometric properties as the original English version.     

Reliability and validity of the Japanese version of the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index in the context of detecting depression in diabetic patients

The present study had two aims. The first was to evaluate the reliability and the validity of the Japanese version of the World Health Organization (WHO)-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5-J) as a brief well-being scale. The second was to examine the discriminatory validity of this test as a screening tool for current depressive episodes in diabetic patients. A sample of 129 diabetic patients completed the WHO-5-J. Of these, 65 were also interviewed by psychiatrists to assess whether they had any current depressive episodes according to DSM-IV. The internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha, the Loevinger coefficient of homogeneity, and factor analysis. The external concurrent validity was evaluated by correlations with the external scales potentially related to subjective well-being. Discriminatory validity was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. Cronbach's alpha and the Loevinger coefficient were estimated to be 0.89 and 0.65, respectively. A factor analysis identified only one factor. The WHO-5-J was significantly correlated with a number of major diabetic complications, depression, anxiety, and subjective quality of life. ROC analysis showed that the WHO-5-J can be used to detect a current depressive episode (area under curve: 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.85-0.98). A cut-off of <13 yielded the best sensitivity/specificity trade-off: sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 78%. The WHO-5-J was thus found to have a sufficient reliability and validity, indicating that it is a useful instrument for detecting current depressive episodes in diabetic patients.     

Evaluation of three nurse‐administered depression rating scales on acute admission and continuing care geriatric psychiatry wards

Several instruments measuring depression in institutional settings have been described but individual instruments have only occasionally been compared with each other. Some psychometric properties, including internal consistency, test‐retest and inter‐rater reliability, and concurrent validity of three nurse‐administered depression rating scales were evaluated on acute admission and continuing care geriatric psychiatry wards. The Depressive Signs Scale (DSS) was significantly correlated with the Depression in Dementia Mood Scale (DDMS) (rho = +0.59) and the Cornell Scale (rho = +0.71). The DDMS was correlated with the Cornell Scale (rho = +0.32). The internal consistency, as measured by Cronbach's alpha, for the DSS, the DDMS and the Cornell Scale was 0.47, 0.64 and 0.74 respectively. The test‐retest reliability of the DSS, the DDMS and the Cornell Scale was 0.73, 0.62 and 0.83 respectively. The DSS and the Cornell scale had poor inter‐rater reliability, but the DDMS had satisfactory inter‐rater reliability of 0.59. These scales, with a novel form of administration, are not suitable for detecting significant clinical depression in acutely admitted and continuing‐care geriatric psychiatry inpatients. However, the DDMS has satisfactory properties for use in measuring presence and quantity of depressive symptoms. Copyright © 2001 Whurr Publishers Ltd.     

The reliability and validity of the Chinese Polarity Inventory

For the simultaneous measurement of manic and depressive symptoms, the Chinese Polarity Inventory (CPI), a 20-item self-report scale, was developed. A total of 329 depressive and 356 manic/hypomanic patients were recruited in this scale developmental study in China. All patients completed the CPI and either the Chinese version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (for depressed subjects) or the Chinese version of the Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Scale (for manic subjects). The CPI was found to have excellent reliability and satisfactory concurrent validity. Construct validity analysis was performed using principal component analysis, which yielded 4 clinically meaningful factors: activity, pleasurability, capability and irritability. The CPI was sensitive in differentiating different severities of depression and mania. However, its ability to differentiate mixed phase from other mood states and its sensitivity to changes during the treatment still need to be studied further.     

The Beck Depression Inventory in clinical practice]

The German version of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) was administered to 477 depressed in- and out-patients, 180 patients with chronic pain and 86 matched healthy control subjects. Earlier studies have applied the German BDI successfully, but only on students and other non-clinical samples. The clinical use of the BDI was found to have good internal consistency and validity. Cronbach's alpha reached 0.88, the average item-total correlation was 0.47. With one exception (weight loss), all items showed significant item-total correlation with the overall severity of depression. Correlations with other self-rating scales were 0.72 and 0.74 and with the Hamilton rating scale 0.34 and 0.37. A factor analysis showed a general factor as the most appropriate solution. Age, sex, and diagnostic subgroups (e.g. endogenous depression) had no significant influence on these results. A score of 18 and higher indicates depressive symptoms severe enough to require further clinical consideration. The BDI is also sensitive to changes in symptomatology over one week or one month, and can be used for pre-post comparisons in psychological and/or pharmacological interventions. Altogether, the German BDI proved to be a useful psychometric instrument for measuring the intensity of depressive symptoms in clinical samples.     

Reliability and Validity of the Korean Version of the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia

Objective

The aim of this study was to explore the reliability and validity of the Korean version of the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD-K), a scale for assessment of depression in dementia.

Methods

The original CSDD was translated into Korean and the content was verified through back-translation procedures. This study included 59 depressive patients with Alzheimer''s disease (AD), 62 non-depressive patients with AD and 36 healthy elderly controls. The subjects were assessed using CSDD-K, the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D₁₇), the 15-item Korean version of Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS₁₅) and the Korean version of Mini-mental Status Examination (MMSE-K).

Results

In the reliability test, Cronbach''s α coefficient and test-retest reliabilities were 0.92 and 0.91, respectively, indicating that the CSDD-K has good internal consistency. There were significant differences in CSDD-K total scores between AD patients with depression and AD patients without depression (p<0.001). In the analysis of the concurrent validity of the CSDD-K, there were significant correlations between the CSDD-K and HAM-D₁₇ (r=0.91, p<0.001) and between the CSDD-K and GDS₁₅ (r=0.75, p<0.001). ROC curve analysis identified a cut-off score of 7 for the CSDD-K, where the sensitivity was 87.5% and the specificity was 100%. Factor analysis resulted in a four-factor solution accounting for 63.8% of the common variance.

Conclusion

The CSDD-K showed good reliability and validity for the assessment of depressive symptom severity in AD patients. The CSDD-K is a useful instrument for assessing AD patients with depressive symptoms in Korean ethnic population.     

Validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to screen for depression in patients with coronary artery disease

OBJECTIVE: Depression is common but frequently undetected in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Self-report screening instruments for assessing depression such as the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) are available but their validity is typically determined in depressed patients without comorbid somatic illness. We investigated the validity of these instruments relative to a referent diagnostic standard in recently hospitalized patients with CAD. METHOD: Three months post-discharge for a cardiac admission, 193 CAD patients completed the HADS and PHQ-9. The Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) was the criterion standard. Scale reliability was calculated using Cronbach's alpha. Convergent validity was computed using Pearson's intercorrelations. Sensitivity and specificity for various cut-off scores for both measures and for the PHQ-9 categorical algorithm were calculated using receiver operating characteristics (ROC). For analyses, participants were assigned to two groups, 'major depressive disorder' or 'any depressive disorder'. RESULTS: For all calculations, alpha was 0.05 and tests were two-tailed. Internal consistencies for the two measures were excellent. Criterion validity for the PHQ-9 and HADS was good. We found no statistical differences between the PHQ-9 and HADS for detecting either group; however, the categorical algorithm of the PHQ-9 for diagnosing major depression had a superior LR+ when compared with the summed HADS or PHQ-9. The operating characteristics of the screening instruments for 'any depressive disorder' were slightly lower than for 'major depressive disorder'. Some optimum cut-off scores were lower than the generally recommended cut-off scores, particularly when screening for major depression (e.g., > or = 5/6 vs. > or = 10 and > or = 8 for PHQ-9 and HADS, respectively). Lowering the cut off scores substantially improved the sensitivity of these instruments while retaining specificity, thereby improving their usefulness to screen for CAD patients with depression. CONCLUSIONS: Both instruments have acceptable properties for detecting depression in recently hospitalized cardiac patients, and neither scale is statistically superior when summed scores are used. The categorical algorithm of the PHQ-9 for diagnosing major depression has a superior LR+ compared to the summed PHQ-9 and HADS scores. Use of the generally recommended cut-off scores should be cautious. In light of the aversive outcomes associated with depression in CAD, screening for depression is a clinical priority.     

Development and validation of the Affective Self Rating Scale for manic, depressive, and mixed affective states

Most rating scales for affective disorders measure either depressive or hypomanic/manic symptoms and there are few scales for hypomania/mania in a self-rating format. We wanted to develop and validate a self-rating scale for comprehensive assessment of depressive, manic/hypomanic and mixed affective states. We developed an 18-item self-rating scale starting with the DSM-IV criteria for depression and mania, with subscales for depression and mania. The scale was evaluated on 61 patients with a diagnosis of affective disorder, predominantly bipolar disorder type I, using Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hypomania Interview Guide-Clinical version (HIGH-C) and Clinical Global Impression scale, modified for bipolar patients (CGI-BP) as reference scales. Internal consistency of the scale measured by Cronbach's alpha was 0.89 for the depression subscale and 0.91 for the mania subscale. Spearman's correlation coefficients (two-tailed) between the depression subscale and MADRS was 0.74 (P<0.01) and between mania subscale and HIGH-C 0.80 (P<0.01). A rotated factor analysis of the scale supported the separation of symptoms in the mania and depression subscale. We established that the self-rating scales sensitivity to identify mixed states, with combined cut-offs on the MADRS and HIGH-C as reference, was 0.90 with a specificity of 0.71. The study shows that the Affective Self Rating Scale is highly correlated with ratings of established interview scales for depression and mania and that it may aid the detection of mixed affective states.     

Validation of the MDS-UPDRS Part I for nonmotor symptoms in Parkinson's disease

The UPDRS has been the main outcome measure in studies of PD. Modifications have been made to improve scale properties and represent the breadth of manifestations of PD, particularly nonmotor symptoms (NMS), resulting in the Movement Disorder Society's revision of the UPDRS (MDS-UPDRS). This study was undertaken to determine the validity of MDS-UPDRS Part I (nonmotor experiences of daily living). The MDS-UPDRS and a number of validated scales for the NMS in PD were used in 94 patients with PD from Hoehn and Yahr stage I to V. We assessed reliability, floor and ceiling effects, and correlations with validated scales for the nonmotor symptoms of PD. MDS-UPDRS Part I showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.85), small floor and ceiling effects (2% floor and 0% ceiling effect), and good concurrent validity (correlation with the original UPDRS Part I: r = 0.81, P < 0.001). The standardized z-score of the MDS-UPDRS Part I score demonstrated high convergent validity with the composite z-score of nonmotor scales (r = 0.89, P < 0.0001), and the two subscores based on the original factor analysis of Part I also had high correlations with the composite z-scores of corresponding nonmotor scales (depression, anxiety, apathy factor score: r = 0.72, P < 0.0001; other nonmotor features factor score: r = 0.87, P < 0.0001). Our data demonstrate that the MDS-UPDRS Part I total score has a strong relationship with a composite score of validated scales for the nonmotor aspects of PD.     

Development of the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale: concurrent validity, discriminant validity and retest reliability

Scales used in studies of bipolar disorder have generally been standardized with major depressive or hospitalized manic patients. A clinician rated scale based on a semi-structured interview for persons with bipolar disorder, with comprehensive coverage of bipolar symptomatology, is needed. We report concurrent, divergent and convergent psychometric reliability, discriminant validity and relationship to a measure of overall function for a new psychometric rating instrument. A primarily outpatient sample of 224 subjects was assessed using the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale (BISS). The BISS total score and depression and mania subscales were compared to the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). Clinical mood states were also compared using the BISS. The BISS scores demonstrated good concurrent validity, with estimates (Pearson correlations) ranging from 0.74 to 0.94 for YMRS and MADRS and test-retest reliability from 0.95 to 0.98. BISS concurrent validity with the GAF was significant for four clinical states, but not mixed states. The BISS discriminated primary bipolar mood states as well as subjects recovered for eight weeks compared to healthy controls. In conclusion, the BISS is a reliable and valid instrument broadly applicable in clinical research to assess the comprehensive domains of bipolar disorder. Future directions include factor analysis and sensitivity to change from treatment studies.     

The Chemical Odor Sensitivity Scale: reliability and validity of a screening instrument for idiopathic environmental intolerance

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the psychometric qualities of a brief screening measure for idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI), the Chemical Odor Sensitivity Scale (COSS). METHODOLOGY: The COSS was administered together with other measures of environmental sensitivity, IEI, and symptom scales in large samples (students, individuals with IEI, and individuals without IEI). RESULTS: The COSS achieved high internal consistency (.88 < or = Cronbach's alpha < or = .96) and good factorial, convergent, and discriminant validity across diverse samples. In a longitudinal sample, the COSS and other IEI features were stable across time. According to receiver operating characteristic analyses, the COSS performs adequately in screening individuals likely to meet case criteria for IEI. CONCLUSIONS: The favorable psychometric qualities of the COSS recommend the scale as a useful tool both for assessing self-reported chemical odor sensitivity as a vulnerability marker and for screening for IEI.     

Development and validation of the Affective Self Rating Scale for manic,depressive, and mixed affective states

Most rating scales for affective disorders measure either depressive or hypomanic/manic symptoms and there are few scales for hypomania/mania in a self-rating format. We wanted to develop and validate a self-rating scale for comprehensive assessment of depressive, manic/hypomanic and mixed affective states. We developed an 18-item self-rating scale starting with the DSM-IV criteria for depression and mania, with subscales for depression and mania. The scale was evaluated on 61 patients with a diagnosis of affective disorder, predominantly bipolar disorder type I, using Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hypomania Interview Guide—Clinical version (HIGH-C) and Clinical Global Impression scale, modified for bipolar patients (CGI-BP) as reference scales. Internal consistency of the scale measured by Cronbach's alpha was 0.89 for the depression subscale and 0.91 for the mania subscale. Spearman's correlation coefficients (two-tailed) between the depression subscale and MADRS was 0.74 (P<0.01) and between mania subscale and HIGH-C 0.80 (P<0.01). A rotated factor analysis of the scale supported the separation of symptoms in the mania and depression subscale. We established that the self-rating scales sensitivity to identify mixed states, with combined cut-offs on the MADRS and HIGH-C as reference, was 0.90 with a specificity of 0.71. The study shows that the Affective Self Rating Scale is highly correlated with ratings of established interview scales for depression and mania and that it may aid the detection of mixed affective states.     

The development of a valid and reliable scale for rating anxiety in dementia (RAID)

A rating scale to measure anxiety in dementia sufferers was developed and evaluated in a sample of 51 inpatients and 32 day-hospital patients. Anxiety scores were not related to sex, age, accommodation or DSM-IV diagnosis of the type of dementia. However, both subjects with physical illnesses and subjects with insight into their memory problems had significantly higher anxiety scores.The kappa values for inter-rater reliability ranged from 0.51 to 1 and for test-retest reliability from 0.53 to 1, which indicates moderate to good reliability.The overall agreement on individual items ranged from 82-100% (inter-rater) and 84-100% (test-retest).The professionals working in the care of the elderly and carer groups felt that the scale was comprehensive and all the items in the scale were important, thereby confirming that it has good content validity. The scale significantly correlated with other anxiety scales and also with independent ratings both by a consultant psychiatrist and also nursing staff, indicating good concurrent validity. Anxiety scores were significantly higher in dementia patients who fulfilled modified DSM-IV criteria for anxiety and clinical diagnosis of anxiety disorder.This showed evidence of good criterion validity. Factor analysis showed five factors, including all items of the scale. Scores of 11 and above on the scale indicated significant clinical anxiety. Overall, the scale had good reliability and validity. It should be a useful clinical and research instrument for assessing anxiety in dementia sufferers.     

Psychometric properties of the French version of the signs and symptoms of psychotic illness (SSPI) scale

OBJECTIVE: This report describes the psychometric evaluation of the French translation of the Signs and Symptoms of Psychotic Illness (SSPI) scale. The SSPI scale was designed to assess the five main clusters of symptoms of people suffering from psychotic disorders (psychomotor poverty, reality distortion, disorganisation, depression, and psychomotor excitation) across diagnostic entities. This new tool has been built by Liddle because, in the existing scales assessing psychotic symptoms, individual items cover symptoms that belong to different pathophysiological processes. The SSPI scale comprises 20 items. Its interview is semi-standardised and typically lasts around 25 min. The English version of this scale has shown good psychometric properties (inter-rater reliability, factor structure). METHOD: We used the SSPI ratings of 81 patients with psychotic symptoms to assess its factor structure and concurrent validity with the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scale. Twenty-eight videotaped ratings were used to calculate the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) as a measure of inter-rater reliability. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The sample was composed of 46 schizophrenic subjects, 14 with schizoaffective disorder, three with major depressive episode with psychotic features, nine with manic episode with psychotic features and nine with other psychotic disorders. A principal component analysis was conducted to determine the factor structure. Using the Cattell test, we retained a five-factor solution. This solution explained 56.9% of the variance. After varimax rotation, 18 items were attributed to a unique factor. The five factors were: a psychomotor poverty factor, a reality distortion factor, a disorganised factor, an anxious/depressive factor and a psychomotor excitation factor. This structure is close to the original one. The inter-rater reliability of the French version of the SSPI was satisfactory for 18 items, with a mean ICC of 0.64 for the individual items, and an ICC of 0.76 for the global scale. Only two items had an unsatisfactory ICC. This scale showed a good correlation with the CGI scale, with a correlation coefficient between CGI score and SSPI global score of 0.64. Among the factor scores, reality distortion, disorganisation and depression factor scores exhibited a significant correlation with the CGI score. CONCLUSIONS: The French version of the SSPI scale has good psychometric properties, similar to the English version. Furthermore, its factor structure is similar to the English one. This scale is a robust instrument to rate psychotic symptoms and dimensions across diagnosis entities.     

The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the bipolar depression rating scale

Introduction

Unipolar depression and bipolar depression differ in their clinical presentations, and the conventional depression rating scales fail to capture these differences. Recently, a new scale to rate the severity of depression in bipolar disorder was developed, and this study aims to evaluate the validity and reliability of this scale in a Turkish clinical sample.

Methods

A total of 81 patients (30 males, 51 females) diagnosed with bipolar depression according to the DSM-IV-TR criteria at three different sites in Turkey were interviewed with the Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS), the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Young Mania Rating Scale, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Depression and Excitement subscales. Internal consistency, interrater reliability and concurrent validity of the BDRS were evaluated.

Results

The Turkish version of the BDRS had an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.786). Moderate to strong correlations between the BDRS, and the MADRS (r = 0.808), and the PANSS-D (r = 0.426) were observed, and the BDRS correlated weakly to moderately with the PANSS-E (r = 0.297), and the YMRS (r = 0.368). The mixed symptom cluster score of the BDRS significantly correlated with the YMRS (r = 0.755), and the PANSS-E (r = 0.712). Exploratory factor analysis showed a three-factor solution. These factors corresponded to somatic depression, psychological depression, and mixed symptoms.

Conclusions

This study shows that the Turkish version of the BDRS is a valid and reliable instrument to measure depressive symptomatology in bipolar disorder. The scale has good internal validity, strong interrater reliability, and moderate to strong correlations with other depression rating scales.     

The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): a validation study of a multidimensional self-report questionnaire to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization

Background

The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire that has been developed in primary care to distinguish non-specific general distress from depression, anxiety and somatization. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate its criterion and construct validity.

Methods

Data from 10 different primary care studies have been used. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the 4DSQ scores with clinical diagnoses, the GPs' diagnosis of any psychosocial problem for Distress, standardised psychiatric diagnoses for Depression and Anxiety, and GPs' suspicion of somatization for Somatization. ROC analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations. Construct validity was evaluated by investigating the inter-correlations between the scales, the factorial structure, the associations with other symptom questionnaires, and the associations with stress, personality and social functioning. The factorial structure of the 4DSQ was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The associations with other questionnaires were assessed with Pearson correlations and regression analyses.

Results

Regarding criterion validity, the Distress scale was associated with any psychosocial diagnosis (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.79), the Depression scale was associated with major depression (AUC = 0.83), the Anxiety scale was associated with anxiety disorder (AUC = 0.66), and the Somatization scale was associated with the GPs' suspicion of somatization (AUC = 0.65). Regarding the construct validity, the 4DSQ scales appeared to have considerable inter-correlations (r = 0.35-0.71). However, 30–40% of the variance of each scale was unique for that scale. CFA confirmed the 4-factor structure with a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.92. The 4DSQ scales correlated with most other questionnaires measuring corresponding constructs. However, the 4DSQ Distress scale appeared to correlate with some other depression scales more than the 4DSQ Depression scale. Measures of stress (i.e. life events, psychosocial problems, and work stress) were mainly associated with Distress, while Distress, in turn, was mainly associated with psychosocial dysfunctioning, including sick leave.

Conclusion

The 4DSQ seems to be a valid self-report questionnaire to measure distress, depression, anxiety and somatization in primary care patients. The 4DSQ Distress scale appears to measure the most general, most common, expression of psychological problems.