Cited by 166Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

A Brief Web-Based Screening Questionnaire for Common Mental Disorders: Development and Validation

Open access
Donker, Tara, Straten, Annemieke van, Marks, Isaac, Cuijpers, Pim·2009·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The advent of Internet-based self-help systems for common mental disorders has generated a need for quick ways to triage would-be users to systems appropriate for their disorders. This need can be met by using brief online screening questionnaires, which can also be quickly used to screen patients prior to consultation with a GP. OBJECTIVE: To test and enhance the validity of the Web Screening Questionnaire (WSQ) to screen for: depressive disorder, alcohol abuse/dependence, GAD, PTSD, social phobia, panic disorder, agoraphobia, specific phobia, and OCD. METHODS: A total of 502 subjects (aged 18 - 80) answered the WSQ and 9 other questionnaires on the Internet. Of these 502, 157 were assessed for DSM-IV-disorders by phone in a WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview with a CIDI-trained interviewer. RESULTS: Positive WSQ "diagnosis" had significantly (P < .001) higher means on the corresponding validating questionnaire than negative WSQ "diagnosis". WSQ sensitivity was 0.72 - 1.00 and specificity was 0.44 - 0.77 after replacing three items (GAD, OCD, and panic) and adding one question for specific phobia. The Areas Under the Curve (AUCs) of the WSQ's items with scaled responses were comparable to AUCs of longer questionnaires. CONCLUSIONS: The WSQ screens appropriately for common mental disorders. While the WSQ screens out negatives well, it also yields a high number of false positives.

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 · 10.2196/jmir.1134

Cites

39 of 39 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 transdiagnostic accuracy of ADA could be considered lower than sensitivities of self-report screenings for mental disorders, which range between 0.72 and 0.90.

    “The transdiagnostic accuracy of ADA could be considered lower when compared with sensitivities of self-report screenings for mental disorders that range between 0.72 and 0.90 according to previous studies [59-62].”

    From Diagnostic Performance of an App-Based Symptom Checker in Mental Disorders: Comparative Study in Psychotherapy Outpatients (2022) · cites this paper as [62]

    The Discussion (Principal Results; page not provided) reports sensitivities for the paper’s web screening questionnaire, supporting the general comparison with mental-disorder screening. But its reported range is 0.72–1.00, not 0.72–0.90; it gives 0.63–0.95 for other online questionnaires. The comparison with ADA is the citing authors’ own framing, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    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: 2

  1. [21]American Psychiatric Association Diagnosis and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th edition 1994 Washington, DC American Psychiatric Association
  2. [35]Smeets RMR Dingemans PMAJ Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), Version 1.1, Interviewers Version, Dutch Translation. World Health Organization edition 1993 Amsterdam/Geneva World Health Organization

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Donker, T., Straten, A. V., Marks, I., & Cuijpers, P.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Donker, Tara
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2009-07-24
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
e19
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1965574070
Cited by
166
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 15
FWCI
13.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
common mental disorders, online self-help, triage, depressive disorders, alcohol abuse and dependence, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, social anxiety disorder, panic disorder, agoraphobia, specific phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, sensitivity and specificity, false positives, questionnaire validation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alcoholism, Anxiety, Mental Disorders, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, Phobic Disorders, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Reproducibility of Results, Panic Disorder, Internet, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Young Adult

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