Cited by 404Traumatic Brain Injury ResearchAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Testing and Assessment

Validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 in Assessing Depression Following Traumatic Brain Injury

Fann, Jesse R., Bombardier, Charles H., Dikmen, Sureyya, Esselman, Peter, Warms, Catherine A., Pelzer, Erika, Rau, Holly, Temkin, Nancy·2005·Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the validity and reliability of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for diagnosing major depressive disorder (MDD) among persons with traumatic brain injury (TBI). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Level I trauma center. PARTICIPANTS: 135 adults within 1 year of complicated mild, moderate, or severe TBI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: PHQ-9 Depression Scale, Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (SCID). RESULTS: Using a screening criterion of at least 5 PHQ-9 symptoms present at least several days over the last 2 weeks (with one being depressed mood or anhedonia) maximizes sensitivity (0.93) and specificity (0.89) while providing a positive predictive value of 0.63 and a negative predictive value of 0.99 when compared to SCID diagnosis of MDD. Pearson's correlation between the PHQ-9 scores and other depression measures was 0.90 with the Hopkins Symptom Checklist depression subscale and 0.78 with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Test-retest reliability of the PHQ-9 was r = 0.76 and kappa = 0.46 when using the optimal screening method. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-9 is a valid and reliable screening tool for detecting MDD in persons with TBI.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00001199-200511000-00003

Cites

9 of 9 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
Fann, J. R., Bombardier, C. H., Dikmen, S., Esselman, P., Warms, C. A., Pelzer, E., Rau, H., & Temkin, N.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation
Published
2005-11
Volume
20
Issue
6
Pages
501-511
ISSN
0885-9701 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2046496887
Cited by
404
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 16
FWCI
5.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R-01 HD39415, R01HD039415)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
PHQ-9, traumatic brain injury, major depressive disorder, depression screening, screening validity, test-retest reliability, sensitivity and specificity, post-traumatic depression, Hopkins Symptom Checklist, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale
MeSH terms
Adult, Brain Injuries, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Probability, Prospective Studies, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Cohort Studies, Glasgow Coma Scale, Injury Severity Score, Incidence, Age Distribution, Sex Distribution, Risk Assessment

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