Cited by 33Bipolar Disorder and TreatmentMental Health Research TopicsPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Are existing self‐ratings of acute manic symptoms in adults reliable and valid?—A systematic review

Open access
Meyer, Thomas D., Crist, Nicholas, La Rosa, Nikki, Ye, Biyu, Soares, Jair C., Bauer, Isabelle E.·2020·Bipolar Disorders

Abstract

Background: Depression research historically uses both self‐ and clinician ratings of symptoms with significant and substantial correlations. It is often assumed that manic patients lack insight and cannot accurately report their symptoms. This delayed the development of self‐rating scales for mania, but several scales now exist and are used in research. Our objective is to systematically review the literature to identify existing self‐ratings of symptoms of (hypo)mania and to evaluate their psychometric properties. Methods: PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and Ovid were searched up until June 2018 using the keywords: “(hypo)mania,” “self‐report,” and “mood disorder” to identify papers which included data on the validity and reliability of self‐rating scales for (hypo)mania in samples including patients with bipolar disorder. Results: We identified 55 papers reporting on 16 different self‐rating scales claiming to assess (hypo)manic symptoms or states. This included single item scales, but also some with over 40 items. Three of the scales, the Internal State Scale (ISS), Altman Self‐Rating Mania Scale (ASRM), and Self‐Report Manic Inventory (SRMI), provided data about reliability and/or validity in more than three independent studies. Validity was mostly assessed by comparing group means from individuals in different mood states and sometimes by correlation to clinician ratings of mania. Conclusions: ASRM, ISS, and SRMI are promising self‐rating tools for (hypo)mania to be used in clinical contexts. Future studies are, however, needed to further validate these measures; for example, their associations between each other and sensitivity to change, especially if they are meant to be outcome measures in studies.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bdi.12906

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The ASRM revealed good psychometric properties in clinical and healthy adult samples.

    “The ASRM revealed good psychometric properties in clinical and healthy adult samples [140]”

    From Efficacy of a transdiagnostic Internet prevention approach in adolescents (EMPATIA study): study protocol of a randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [140]

    Section 3.3 reports evidence of ASRM validity in clinical samples and satisfactory internal consistency (0.70) in a healthy sample. But it also reports test–retest reliability of 0.25 in that healthy sample, while the Discussion says validity and reliability data remain limited. Calling its psychometric properties broadly ‘good’ in both groups overstates the review’s qualified assessment; page numbers were not supplied. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Plutchik R, Platman SR, Tilles R, Fieve RR. Construction and eval- uation of a test for measuring mania and depression. J Clin Psychol. 1970;26:499-503.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meyer, T. D., Crist, N., La Rosa, N., Ye, B., Soares, J. C., & Bauer, I. E.
Affiliations
  • The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
  • McGovern Medical School Louis A. Faillace, MD, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences University of Texas HSC at Houston Houston TX USA
Corresponding author
Meyer, Thomas D.
Venue
Bipolar Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-04-13
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
558-568
ISSN
  • 1398-5647 (ISSN-L)
  • 1399-5618
OpenAlex
W3013745939
Cited by
33
References
79
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bipolar Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
self-report scale, manic symptoms, hypomania, bipolar disorder, psychometric properties, reliability statistics, validity, clinician ratings
MeSH terms
Adult, Bipolar Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results, Mood Disorders, 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