Cited by 80Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development

A study of the discriminative validity of a screening tool (MINI-SPIN) for social anxiety disorder applied to Brazilian university students

de Lima Osório, Flávia, Crippa, José Alexandre, Loureiro, Sonia Regina·2007·European Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the discriminative validity of MINI-SPIN (MS) as a screening tool for social anxiety disorder (SAD) in a group of Brazilian university students. Method: SPIN was collectively applied to 2320 university students. Among them, 656 individuals who fulfilled the criteria for positive MS (N = 473) and negative MS (N = 183) were selected and divided into two groups. The selected subjects were interviewed by telephone using the SAD module of the SCID-IV, used as the gold standard. In order to check interrater reliability, a group of university students (N = 57) was reinterviewed by telephone by a second rater, and another group (N = 100) participated in a face-to-face interview. Results: The Kappa coefficient among the telephone interviews was 0.80, and a coefficient of 0.84 (P < 0.001) was obtained between the telephone interview and the face-to-face one. For a cut-off score of 6, suggested in the original English version of the instrument, sensitivity was 0.94, specificity 0.46, the positive predictive value (PPV) was 0.58, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was 0.92. For a cut-off score of 7, we observed an increase in the specificity and in the PPV (0.68 and 0.65) while the sensitivity and NPV (0.78 and 0.80) remained high. Discussion/Conclusion: MS showed quite satisfactory psychometric qualities. The cut-off score of 6 seemed to be the most suitable to attest the tracking value of the tool. However, the cut-off score of 7 was the most suitable as a minimum parameter for the studied group, with psychometric values more similar to those of the original study.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2007.01.003

Cites

24 of 24 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
de Lima Osório, F., Crippa, J. A., & Loureiro, S. R.
Affiliations
Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
Venue
European Psychiatry
Published
2007-05
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
239-243
ISSN
  • 0924-9338 (ISSN-L)
  • 1778-3585
OpenAlex
W1995389136
Cited by
80
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 10
FWCI
11.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Keywords
social anxiety disorder, screening tool, discriminative validity, university students, cut-off values, inter-rater reliability, telephone interviews, Brazilian adaptation
MeSH terms
Adult, Brazil, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Phobic Disorders, Psychometrics, ROC Curve, Students, Universities, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation

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