Cited by 329Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Anxiety measures validated in perinatal populations: A systematic review

Open access
Meades, Rose, Ayers, Susan·2011·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Research and screening of anxiety in the perinatal period is hampered by a lack of psychometric data on self-report anxiety measures used in perinatal populations. This paper aimed to review self-report measures that have been validated with perinatal women.Methods A systematic search was carried out of four electronic databases. Additional papers were obtained through searching identified articles. Thirty studies were identified that reported validation of an anxiety measure with perinatal women.Results Most commonly validated self-report measures were the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scales (HADS). Of the 30 studies included, 11 used a clinical interview to provide criterion validity. Remaining studies reported one or more other forms of validity (factorial, discriminant, concurrent and predictive) or reliability. The STAI shows criterion, discriminant and predictive validity and may be most useful for research purposes as a specific measure of anxiety. The Kessler 10 (K-10) may be the best short screening measure due to its ability to differentiate anxiety disorders. The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales 21 (DASS-21) measures multiple types of distress, shows appropriate content, and remains to be validated against clinical interview in perinatal populations.Limitations Nineteen studies did not report sensitivity or specificity data. The early stages of research into perinatal anxiety, the multitude of measures in use, and methodological differences restrict comparison of measures across studies.Conclusion There is a need for further validation of self-report measures of anxiety in the perinatal period to enable accurate screening and detection of anxiety symptoms and disorders.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2010.10.009

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 IDAS-II has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties in pregnant samples.

    “The IDAS-II has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties in pregnant samples [64, 65]”

    From Trajectories of Maternal and Paternal Internalizing Symptoms from Pregnancy to 2 Years Postpartum: Identifying Modifiable Risk and Protective Factors (2024) · cites this paper as [65]

    The Other measures section reports a clear factor structure and internal consistency of 0.74–0.91 for the IDAS in a sample of women less than four months postpartum. It does not identify the measure as the IDAS-II or report these findings in pregnant samples; the Discussion also says the IDAS still needs validation against a clinical interview in perinatal samples. (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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bjelland, I., Dahl, A.A., Haug, T.T., Neckelmann, D., 2002. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated review. J. Psychiat. Res. 52, 69-77.
  2. Goldberg, D.P., 1972. The Detection of Psychiatric Illness by Questionnaire. (Maudsley monograph no 21). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meades, R., & Ayers, S.
Affiliations
University of Sussex (GB)
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-09
Volume
133
Issue
1-2
Pages
1-15
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114696206
Cited by
329
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 6
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • 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
Keywords
perinatal anxiety, anxiety screening, psychometric validation, General Health Questionnaire, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Kessler K10, DASS-21, criterion validity, discriminant validity, perinatal women
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Weights and Measures, Reproducibility of Results, Postpartum Period

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