The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM-IV depressive disorders and physicians? diagnoses
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The PHQ-9 [81–83] is a 9-item questionnaire measuring the frequency of depression symptoms on a 4-point Likert scale (0 = not at all, 3 = almost every day) for the past week.”
In the citing paper
“Several studies support its validity in outpatient adult mental health settings, both as an initial screening tool and as a follow-up measure to monitor treatment progress. 22-25”
From Dialectical behaviour therapy skills training: A feasibility study with active duty military. (2022) · cites this paper as [23]
In the citing paper
“Previous studies of the PHQ-9 that examined psychometric properties have shown that all items load in one single factor and that it has an internal consistency with Cronbach's α of 0.79 to 0.89. 16,19,26”
From Comparison of two self-rating scales to detect depression: HADS and PHQ-9 (2009) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“alternatively, the PHQ-9 scale may be over-inclusive, as indicated by, for example, Löwe et al . 16”
From Comparison of two self-rating scales to detect depression: HADS and PHQ-9 (2009) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“However, some studies recommend a higher cut-off such as ≥ 11 or ≥ 12 to improve the balance between sensitivity and specificity. 16,24”
From Comparison of two self-rating scales to detect depression: HADS and PHQ-9 (2009) · cites this paper as [16]
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983) · Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x · Cited by 47,139
The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x · Cited by 44,910
DeLong, E. R., DeLong, D. M., & Clarke-Pearson, D. L. (1988) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531595 · Cited by 22,649
Spitzer, R. L. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.18.1737 · Cited by 9,802
The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale
Bjelland, I., Dahl, A. A., Haug, T. T., & Neckelmann, D. (2002) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/s0022-3999(01)00296-3 · Cited by 9,779
Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters.
Fleiss, J. L. (1971) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0031619 · Cited by 8,733
Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders : SCID-I : clinical version : scoresheet
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1997) · American Psychiatric Press eBooks · Cited by 3,101
Herrmann, C. (1997) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/s0022-3999(96)00216-4 · Cited by 2,885
The functioning and well-being of depressed patients. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study
Wells, K. B. (1989) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.262.7.914 · Cited by 2,826
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 · Cited by 31,765
Self-citationThe WHO-5 well-being index: A systematic review of the literature
Topp, C. W., Østergaard, S. D., Søndergaard, S., & Bech, P. (2015) · Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics · doi:10.1159/000376585 · Cited by 4,708
Combat Duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mental Health Problems, and Barriers to Care
Hoge, C. W., Castro, C. A., Messer, S. C., McGurk, D., Cotting, D. I., & Koffman, R. L. (2004) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa040603 · Cited by 4,778
Löwe, B., Decker, O., Müller, S., Brähler, E., Schellberg, D., Herzog, W., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2008) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/mlr.0b013e318160d093 · Cited by 4,527
Self-citationKroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2010) · General Hospital Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2010.03.006 · Cited by 4,057
Metadata
- 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
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › 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
