Performance of Screening and Diagnostic Tests: Application of Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis
Abstract
Evaluation of psychiatric screening and diagnostic tests has benefited from the application of sensitivity, specificity, the kappa-statistic, and predictive values. These measures derive their meaning from a single criterion threshold. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis extends assessment of test performance by providing information about all possible pairs of achievable sensitivity and specificity values. The ROC analysis offers a comprehensive means for comparing different tests or different scoring procedures for one test. As a demonstration we used the ROC analysis to evaluate three types of scoring rules for one psychiatric test, the Health Opinion Survey. The demonstration indicated that ROC analysis can profitably take a place among the standard methods for test evaluation in psychiatric research. In addition, ROC analysis can assist clinicians in selecting appropriate test procedures for particular patient populations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The prevalence of high-level tinnitus distress in the adult population is between 0.5% and 3%.
“whereas the prevalence of high-level tinnitus distress in the adult population is between 0.5% and 3%.[34]”
From The influence of tinnitus acceptance on the quality of life and psychological distress in patients with chronic tinnitus (2015) · cites this paper as [34]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 20 · Cited by 367
- Authors
- Murphy, J. M.
- Corresponding author
- Murphy, Jane M.
- ORCID
- Murphy, Jane M.
- Venue
- Archives of General Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1987-06-01
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 550
- ISSN
- 0003-990X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2149991803
- Cited by
- 367
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 24.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Archives of General Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH40511, MH40076, MH39576)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Keywords
- diagnostic test evaluation, receiver operating characteristic, sensitivity and specificity, kappa statistic, predictive value, scoring rules, test performance comparison
- MeSH terms
- Mental Disorders, Borderline Personality Disorder, False Negative Reactions, False Positive Reactions, Humans, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychological Tests, Psychometrics, Statistics as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
