Research reportComparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM-IV depressive disorders and physicians’ diagnoses
Introduction
Depressive disorders are associated with high levels of personal suffering, increased disability days, and elevated risk of cardiovascular mortality and suicide (Wells et al., 1989, Broadhead et al., 1990, Ormel et al., 1994, Simon et al., 1995, Frasure-Smith et al., 2000, Penninx et al., 2001, Posternak and Miller, 2001). Unfortunately, physicians only detect 30–50% of patients with depression in primary care (Nielsen and Williams, 1980, Perez-Stable et al., 1990, Ormel et al., 1991, Docherty, 1997, Williams et al., 1999, Hansen et al., 2001). More frequently, depression goes undetected and so remains untreated (Gelenberg, 1999). Major and minor depressive disorders respond well to psychotherapy and/or treatment with anti-depressants (Miranda and Munoz, 1994, Coulehan et al., 1997, Schulberg et al., 1998, Whooley and Simon, 2000, Williams et al., 2000, Jarrett et al., 2001), thus emphasising the need to improve recognition by clinicians. Recently, it has been demonstrated that screening for depression can be cost-effective if screening costs are low and effective treatments are given (Valenstein et al., 2001). Screening questionnaires that guarantee low screening costs are entirely self-administered, and only require a couple of minutes for patients to complete and physicians to review. International and well-established screening questionnaires that meet these requirements are the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; Zigmond and Snaith, 1983), the WHO (five) Well Being Index (WBI-5; WHO, 1998a), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ; Spitzer et al., 1999). Of interest to clinicians and researchers is knowing which of the available screening instruments can be recommended for clinical use, the validity of the results, and their superiority to recognition by physicians working with medical outpatients. In addition, users of screening questionnaires need to know optimal cut-off points for detecting depressive disorders according to DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 2000).
The purpose of this study was to determine the comparative validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the WHO (five) Well Being Index (WBI-5), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ), and physicians’ recognition of depressive disorders. Specifically, this study aimed:
- (1)
to investigate internal consistency and intercorrelations of the three depression scales;
- (2)
to analyse the operating characteristics of the depression scales and physicians’ diagnoses according to an independent criterion standard for depressive disorders;
- (3)
to determine if any one screening instrument is superior to the others in diagnosing DSM-IV depressive disorders;
- (4)
to determine optimal cut-off points for discriminating between subjects with and without depressive disorders.
Section snippets
Subjects
The study was performed in the outpatient clinics of Heidelberg Medical Hospital and 12 family practices in Heidelberg from August 2000 to July 2001. On predetermined days, patients visiting these sites were asked to participate in our study and to complete a set of questionnaires during their waiting time. With the aim of performing 500 Structured Clinical Interviews for DSM-IV (SCID; First et al., 1995, Wittchen et al., 1997) as the criterion standard for the presence of depressive disorders,
Internal consistency and intercorrelations
The internal consistency of all three depression scales was excellent: Cronbach’s α for the PHQ was 0.88; the HADS, 0.86; and the WBI-5, 0.91. The substantial intercorrelations of 0.74 (HADS×PHQ), −0.73 (WBI-5×PHQ), and −0.76 (HADS×WBI-5) demonstrate that the three scales measure nearly the same construct.
Comparative validity for ‘major depressive disorder’
Table 1 shows the operating characteristics of the depression scales and the physicians’ diagnoses for ‘major depressive disorder’ for three potential cut-off points for each instrument, and
Discussion
The main purpose of our study was to investigate the criterion validity of three international screening instruments for depression, and to determine whether they differ significantly regarding their ability to diagnose DSM-IV depressive disorders. Previous comprehensive reviews (Meakin, 1992, Mulrow et al., 1995) have demonstrated reasonable operating characteristics for several case-finding instruments for depression, but significant differences between instruments remain elusive. To our
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by unrestricted research grants from Pfizer, Germany, and from the medical faculty of the University of Heidelberg, Germany (project 121/2000), and there are no conflicts of interest. First of all, we thank our patients and their doctors, who collaborated to this study and made this work possible. We are very grateful to our students Levke Willand and Ingeborg Warnke, who played an important role in data collection. Susanne Geercken, MA, Pfizer, reviewed the German
References (57)
- et al.
The sensitivity and specificity of the Major Depression Inventory, using the Present State Examination as the index of diagnostic validity
J. Affect. Disord.
(2001) - et al.
The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review
J. Psychosom. Res.
(2002) - et al.
Mental disorders among internal medical inpatients: prevalence, detection, and treatment status
J. Psychosom. Res.
(2001) International experiences with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale—a review of validation data and clinical results
J. Psychosom. Res.
(1997)- et al.
Untreated short-term course of major depression: a meta-analysis of outcomes from studies using wait-list control groups
J. Affect. Disord.
(2001) - et al.
Validity and utility of the PRIME-MD patient health questionnaire in assessment of 3000 obstetric-gynecologic patients: the PRIME-MD Patient Health Questionnaire Obstetrics-Gynecology Study
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
(2000) - et al.
Sensitivity and specificity of observer and self-report questionnaires in major and minor depression following myocardial infarction
Psychosomatics
(2001) - et al.
A comparison between the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the self-rating version of the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)
J. Affect. Disord.
(2001) - et al.
Case-finding for depression in primary care: a randomized trial
Am. J. Med.
(1999) - American Psychiatric Association, 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR. 4th Edition....
The WHO (Ten) Well-Being Index: validation in diabetes
Psychother. Psychosom.
State of the art procedures for translating, validating and using psychoeducational tests in cross-cultural assessment
School Psychol. Int.
Depression, disability days, and days lost from work in a prospective epidemiologic survey
J. Am. Med. Assoc.
Treating depressed primary care patients improves their physical, mental, and social functioning
Arch. Int. Med.
Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach
Biometrics
Validation and utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire in diagnosing mental disorders in 1003 general hospital spanish inpatients
Psychosom. Med.
Barriers to the diagnosis of depression in primary care
J. Clin. Psychiatry
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters
Psychol. Bull.
Social support, depression, and mortality during the first year after myocardial infarction
Circulation
Depression is still underrecognized and undertreated
Arch. Intern. Med.
Internal and external validity of the WHO Well-Being Scale in the elderly general population
Acta Psychiatr. Scand.
Preventing recurrent depression using cognitive therapy with and without a continuation phase: a randomized clinical trial
Arch. Gen. Psychiatry
Health problems, impairment and illnesses associated with bulimia nervosa and binge eating disorder among primary care and obstetric gynaecology patients
Psychol. Med.
Measuring the potency of risk factors for clinical or policy significance
Psychol. Methods
Depression screening is not enough
Ann. Intern. Med.
Similar effectiveness of paroxetine, fluoxetine, and sertraline in primary care: a randomized trial
J. Am. Med. Assoc.
Cited by (839)
Association between commuting time and depressive symptoms in 5th Korean Working Conditions Survey
2024, Journal of Transport and HealthPsychometric properties of the Psy-flex scale: A validation study in a community sample in Korea
2023, Journal of Contextual Behavioral ScienceEvaluating the development and well-being assessment (DAWBA) in pediatric anxiety and depression
2024, Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health