Cited by 215Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

Further validation of the IDAS: Evidence of convergent, discriminant, criterion, and incremental validity.

Watson, David, O'Hara, Michael W., Chmielewski, Michael, McDade-Montez, Elizabeth A., Koffel, Erin, Naragon, Kristin, Stuart, Scott·2008·Psychological Assessment

Abstract

The authors explicated the validity of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS; D. Watson et al., 2007) in 2 samples (306 college students and 605 psychiatric patients). The IDAS scales showed strong convergent validity in relation to parallel interview-based scores on the Clinician Rating version of the IDAS; the mean convergent correlations were .51 and .62 in the student and patient samples, respectively. With the exception of the Well-Being Scale, the scales also consistently demonstrated significant discriminant validity. Furthermore, the scales displayed substantial criterion validity in relation to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) mood and anxiety disorder diagnoses in the patient sample. The authors identified particularly clear and strong associations between (a) major depression and the IDAS General Depression, Dysphoria and Well-Being scales, (b) panic disorder and IDAS Panic, (c) posttraumatic stress disorder and IDAS Traumatic Intrusions, and (d) social phobia and IDAS Social Anxiety. Finally, in logistic regression analyses, the IDAS scales showed significant incremental validity in predicting several DSM-IV diagnoses when compared against the Beck Depression Inventory-II (A. T. Beck, R. A. Steer, & G. K. Brown, 1996) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (A. T. Beck & R. A. Steer, 1990).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0012570

Cites

8 of 8 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
Watson, D., O'Hara, M. W., Chmielewski, M., McDade-Montez, E. A., Koffel, E., Naragon, K., & Stuart, S.
Affiliations
University of Iowa (US)
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Published
2008-09
Volume
20
Issue
3
Pages
248-259
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
OpenAlex
W2026447783
Cited by
215
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 9
FWCI
8.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Iowa Research Online (The University of Iowa) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R01-MH068472)
Topics
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Ida, convergent validity, discriminant validity, criterion validity, incremental validity, depression, anxiety, panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, social anxiety disorder, major depressive disorder, DSM-IV diagnosis, university students, psychiatric patients, Beck Depression Inventory-II, Beck Anxiety Inventory
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety Disorders, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reproducibility of Results, Discriminant Analysis

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