Validity of LIDAS (LIfetime Depression Assessment Self-report): a self-report online assessment of lifetime major depressive disorder
Open accessAbstract
Background: There is a paucity of valid, brief instruments for the assessment of lifetime major depressive disorder (MDD) that can be used in, for example, large-scale genomics, imaging or biomarker studies on depression. We developed the LIfetime Depression Assessment Self-report (LIDAS), which assesses lifetime MDD diagnosis according to DSM criteria, and is largely based on the widely used Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Here, we tested the feasibility and determined the sensitivity and specificity for measuring lifetime MDD with this new questionnaire, with a regular CIDI as reference. Method: Sensitivity and specificity analyses of the online lifetime MDD questionnaire were performed in adults with ( n = 177) and without ( n = 87) lifetime MDD according to regular index CIDIs, selected from the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA) and Netherlands Twin Register (NTR). Feasibility was tested in an additional non-selective, population-based sample of NTR participants ( n = 245). Results: Of the 753 invited persons, 509 (68%) completed the LIDAS, of which 419 (82%) did this online. User-friendliness of the instrument was rated high. Median completion time was 6.2 min. Sensitivity and specificity for lifetime MDD were 85% [95% confidence interval (CI) 80–91%] and 80% (95% CI 72–89%), respectively. This LIDAS instrument gave a lifetime MDD prevalence of 20.8% in the population-based sample. Conclusions: Measuring lifetime MDD with an online instrument was feasible. Sensitivity and specificity were adequate. The instrument gave a prevalence of lifetime MDD in line with reported population prevalences. LIDAS is a promising tool for rapid determination of lifetime MDD status in large samples, such as needed for genomics studies.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 41 · Cited by 56
- Authors
- Bot, M., Middeldorp, C. M., de Geus, E. J. C., Lau, H. M., Sinke, M., van Nieuwenhuizen, B., Smit, J. H., Boomsma, D. I., & Penninx, B. W. J. H.
- Affiliations
- Amsterdam Neuroscience (NL)
- Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Bot, M.
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2016-10-05
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 279-289
- ISSN
- 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8978
- OpenAlex
- W2531370197
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- pure.amsterdamumc.nl
- Licence
- Locations
- Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (184021007, NWO 184.021.007)
- 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
- self-report questionnaire, online assessment, sensitivity and specificity, Composite International Diagnostic Interview, depression prevalence, assessment validity, feasibility, Netherlands Twin Register, NESDA
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Feasibility Studies, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Registries, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Internet, Young Adult, Self Report
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