CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 176Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The validity of the Dutch K10 and extended K10 screening scales for depressive and anxiety disorders

Donker, Tara, Comijs, Hannie, Cuijpers, Pim, Terluin, Berend, Nolen, Willem, Zitman, Frans, Penninx, Brenda·2010·Psychiatry Research
DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2009.01.012
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The aim of this study was to validate the Dutch version of the Kessler-10 (K10) as well as an extended version (EK10) in screening for depressive and anxiety disorders in primary care. Data are from 1607 participants (18 through 65 years, 68.8% female) of the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA), recruited from 65 general practitioners. Participants completed the K10, extended with five additional questions focusing on core anxiety symptoms, and were evaluated with the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI lifetime version 2.1) to assess DSM-IV disorders (major depressive disorder, dysthymia, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, panic disorder, agoraphobia). Reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of the Dutch K10 was 0.94. Based on Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) for the K10 for any depressive and/or anxiety disorder was found to be 0.87. The extended questions on the EK10 significantly improved the detection of anxiety disorders in particular. With a cut-off point of 20, the K10 reached a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.81 for any depressive and/or anxiety disorder. For the EK10, a cut-off point of 20 and/or at least one positive answer on the additional questions provided a sensitivity of 0.90 and a specificity of 0.75 for detecting any depressive and/or anxiety disorder. The Dutch version of the K10 is appropriate for screening depressive disorders in primary care, while the EK10 is preferred in screening for both depressive and anxiety disorders.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2009.01.012

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Howland, 2005, Comorbid depression and anxiety: when and how to treat, Journal of Psychiatry, 11, 891
  2. Wittchen, H.U., Robins, L.N., Cottler, L.B., 1984. Inter-rater reliability of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Results from the multi-center WHO/ADAMHA field trials (wave I). In: Stefanis, C.N. (Editor), Psychiatry – A World Perspective. Vol. 1. International Congress Series. Vol. 900. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 125–132.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 176

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Donker, T., Comijs, H., Cuijpers, P., Terluin, B., Nolen, W., Zitman, F., & Penninx, B.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
Corresponding author
Donker, Tara
ORCID
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-03
Volume
176
Issue
1
Pages
45-50
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.psychres.2009.01.012
OpenAlex
W2119394554
Cited by
175
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 10
FWCI
15.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Rivierduinen
  • GGZ Friesland
  • GGZ Drenthe
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Kessler K10, screening tool, depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, primary care, Dutch translation, psychometric validation, sensitivity and specificity, major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia, dysthymia, NESDA
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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