The Patient Mania Questionnaire (PMQ-9): a Brief Scale for Assessing and Monitoring Manic Symptoms
Open accessAbstract
Background Measurement-based care is an effective clinical strategy underutilized for bipolar disorder partly due to lacking a widely adopted patient-reported manic symptom measure.Objective To report development and psychometric properties of a brief patient-reported manic symptom measure.Design Secondary analysis of data collected in a randomized effectiveness trial comparing two treatments for 1004 primary care patients screening positive for bipolar disorder and/or PTSD.Participants Two analytic samples included 114 participants with varied diagnoses and test-retest data, and 179 participants with psychiatrist-diagnosed bipolar disorder who had two or more assessments with the nine-item Patient Mania Questionnaire-9 [PMQ-9]).Main measures Internal and test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, and sensitivity to change were assessed. Minimally important difference (MID) was estimated by standard error of measurement (SEM) and by standard deviation (SD) effect sizes.Key results The PMQ-9 had high internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88) and test-retest reliability (0.85). Concurrent validity correlation with manic symptom measures was high for the Internal State Scale-Activation Subscale (0.70; p<0.0001), and lower for the Altman Mania Rating Scale (0.26; p=0.007). Longitudinally, PMQ-9 was completed at 1511 clinical encounters in 179 patients with bipolar disorder. Mean PMQ-9 score at first and last encounters was 14.5 (SD 6.5) and 10.1 (SD 7.0), a 27% decrease in mean score during treatment, suggesting sensitivity to change. A point estimate of the MID was approximately 3 points (range of 2-4).Conclusions The PMQ-9 demonstrated excellent test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, internal consistency, and sensitivity to change and was widely used and acceptable to patients and clinicians in a pragmatic clinical trial. Combined with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) measure of depressive symptoms this brief measure could inform measurement-based care for individuals with bipolar disorder in primary care and mental health care settings given its ease of administration and familiar self-report response format.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Multiple screening tools for bipolar disorder have been validated, including the Rapid Mood Screener (RMS), the Patient Mania Questionnaire (PMQ), the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ), and the Hypomania Checklist-32.
“Multiple screening tools for bipolar disorder have been validated, including the Rapid Mood Screener (RMS) 160 , the Patient Mania Questionnaire (PMQ) 161 , the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) 162 , and the Hypomania Checklist- 32 163 .”
From Treatment‐resistant depression: definition, prevalence, detection, management, and investigational interventions (2023) · cites this paper as [161]
The Abstract reports reliability, concurrent validity, and sensitivity to change for the PMQ-9. But the Measurements and Discussion sections describe it as a tool for monitoring manic symptoms in patients with bipolar disorder, not as a validated tool for screening for bipolar disorder. This citation is attached to the PMQ alone, so the other named tools are not assessed here. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 21
- Authors
- Cerimele, J. M., Russo, J., Bauer, A. M., Hawrilenko, M., Pyne, J. M., Dalack, G. W., Kroenke, K., Unützer, J., & Fortney, J. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- Regenstrief Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cerimele, Joseph M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of General Internal Medicine
- Published
- 2021-06-18
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1680-1687
- ISSN
- 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-1497
- PMC
- PMC9130397
- OpenAlex
- W3170994634
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 2.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCS-1406-19295)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
- Keywords
- manic symptoms, bipolar disorder, patient-reported outcome measures, measurement-based care, scale development, psychometric properties, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, sensitivity to change, minimally important difference, primary care, post-traumatic stress disorder
- MeSH terms
- Mania, Bipolar Disorder, Humans, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Randomized Controlled Trials 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