Cited by 1,060Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessTreatment of Major Depression

Comparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM-IV depressive disorders and physicians? diagnoses

LOWE, B·2004·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background The aim of this study was to compare the validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the WHO (five) Well Being Index (WBI-5), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ), and physicians' recognition of depressive disorders, and to recommend specific cut-off points for clinical decision making.Methods A total of 501 outpatients completed each of the three depression screening questionnaires and received the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) as the criterion standard. In addition, treating physicians were asked to give their psychiatric diagnoses. Criterion validity and Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) were determined. Areas under the curves (AUCs) were compared statistically.Results All depression scales showed excellent internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha: 0.85-0.90). For 'major depressive disorder', the operating characteristics of the PHQ were significantly superior to both the HADS and the WBI-5. For 'any depressive disorder', the PHQ showed again the best operating characteristics but the overall difference did not reach statistical significance at the 5% level. Cut-off points that can be recommended for the screening of 'major depressive disorder' had sensitivities of 98% (PHQ), 94% (WBI-5), and 85% (HADS). Corresponding specificities were 80% (PHQ), 78% (WBI-5), and 76% (HADS). In contrast, physicians' recognition of 'major depressive disorder' was poor (sensitivity, 40%; specificity, 87%).Limitations Our sample may not be representative of medical outpatients, but sensitivity and specificity are independent of disorder prevalence.Conclusions All three questionnaires performed well in depression screening, but significant differences in criterion validity existed. These results may be helpful in the selection of questionnaires and cut-off points.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0165-0327(02)00237-9

Cites

52 of 52 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
LOWE, B.
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-02
Volume
78
Issue
2
Pages
131-140
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087381130
Cited by
1,060
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 49 · 2015: 60 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 63 · 2012: 65
FWCI
19.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Pfizer
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
depression screening, major depressive disorder, Patient Health Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, physician diagnosis, criterion validity, cut-off values, sensitivity and specificity, outpatients
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Mass Screening, Primary Health Care, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Diagnostic Techniques and Procedures, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

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