0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Article |

A Self-Report Scale to Help Make Psychiatric Diagnoses:  The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire FREE

Mark Zimmerman, MD; Jill I. Mattia, PhD
[+] Author Affiliations

From the Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University School of Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence.


Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001;58(8):787-794. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.58.8.787.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ) is a brief, psychometrically strong, self-report scale designed to screen for the most common DSM-IV Axis I disorders encountered in outpatient mental health settings. In the present report, we describe the diagnostic performance (sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values) of the PDSQ in an outpatient setting.

Methods  Six hundred thirty psychiatric outpatients presenting for treatment were evaluated with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV after completing the PDSQ. Patients arrived approximately 20 minutes before the scheduled time of the appointment to complete the scale. Diagnostic raters were blind to responses on the scale.

Results  The PDSQ's subscales' diagnostic performance varied in a predictable manner according to the cutoff score—as the threshold for case identification increased, subscale sensitivity decreased and specificity increased. Mean subscale sensitivities of 80%, 85%, and 90% resulted in mean subscale specificities of 78%, 73%, and 66%, respectively, and negative predictive values of 95%, 96%, and 97%. Receiver operating curves were determined for each subscale and all areas under the curve were significant.

Conclusions  The PDSQ is a diagnostic aid designed to be used in clinical practice to facilitate the efficiency of conducting initial diagnostic evaluations. From a clinical perspective, it is most important that a diagnostic aid have good sensitivity, so that most cases are detected, and high negative predictive value, so that most noncases on the measure are indeed noncases. Our results indicate that most of the PDSQ subscales were able to achieve this goal.

Figures in this Article

THE PSYCHIATRIC Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ) is a self-report scale designed to screen for the most common DSM-IV Axis I disorders encountered in outpatient mental health settings. Five research and clinical factors occurring during the past 2 decades contributed to the development of the PDSQ. First, the publication of specific inclusion criteria to make psychiatric diagnoses, complemented by the development of standardized interviews to reliably assess the criteria, set the stage for the construction of self-administered questionnaires, such as the PDSQ, which screen for or make provisional psychiatric diagnoses. While research diagnostic interviews, such as the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia,1 Diagnostic Interview Schedule,2 and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID),3 are not infallible, they have been accepted as diagnostic standards to which the diagnostic performance of other tests (be they biological or self-report) are compared.

Second, several research groups demonstrated that it was possible to construct a self-report questionnaire that "diagnosed" individual DSM-IV disorders. One of the first such measures was constructed in the early 1980s by Zimmerman and colleagues,4 who developed the Inventory to Diagnose Depression to evaluate the DSM-III criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD). Their initial work on the Inventory to Diagnose Depression was replicated by other research groups,5,6 and subsequently other questionnaires have been designed to screen for specific DSM-IV Axis I disorders, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and bulimia nervosa.7,8

The third influence on our decision to develop a questionnaire assessing several Axis I diagnoses was the increasing recognition of the frequency and importance of diagnostic comorbidity.9,10 High rates of comorbidity may be caused by covariation of truly distinct syndromes or may well be an artifact of the nomenclature; nonetheless, detection of comorbidity is considered clinically important because patients with multiple disorders tend to have poorer outcomes.1114

Fourth, there has been accumulating evidence that diagnostic comorbidity is underrecognized in routine clinical practice.15,16 Studies of comorbidity rates in patients whose conditions were diagnosed by clinicians in the routine clinical setting are one half to one third the comorbidity rates reported in studies using standardized research diagnostic interviews.16

Fifth, the changing health care delivery system has placed increasing time constraints on conducting diagnostic evaluations. When clinicians' time to conduct diagnostic evaluations is reduced, it is more likely that additional psychiatric disorders beyond the presenting complaint will not be detected.

These 5 factors were the impetus for the development of the PDSQ. Our goal was to develop a psychometrically sound, clinically useful instrument that was brief enough to be completed by patients before their initial diagnostic evaluation, yet comprehensive enough to cover the most common disorders for which individuals seek treatment. Finally, the scoring and organization of the measure should be clear and straightforward enough so that a clinician, or office worker can rapidly review and score the scale and obtain clinically meaningful information. In previous reports from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project, we presented the psychometric properties of the successive versions of the PDSQ.17,18 In the present report from the MIDAS project, we describe the diagnostic performance of the PDSQ in an outpatient setting.

SUBJECTS

A subset of patients (n = 630) evaluated in the Rhode Island Hospital Department of Psychiatry outpatient practice were interviewed by a trained diagnostic rater who administered the SCID and presented the results to the treating clinician. We previously reported that the patients who were and were not interviewed with the SCID were similar in their demographic characteristics and scores on self-report measures of symptom severity.16 The Rhode Island Hospital Institutional Review Committee approved the research protocol, and all patients provided informed, written consent. Details regarding interviewer experience, training, supervision, and reliability are presented in other reports from the MIDAS project.16,19,20

When scheduling their appointments, patients were told to arrive early to complete some standard forms. The PDSQ takes approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete, and its administration did not disrupt usual clinical practice. Because we were planning to test the PDSQ's validity by examining the relationship between subscale scores and psychiatric diagnoses, SCID interviewers were kept blind to subjects' responses on the measure. The PDSQ was always completed before the SCID.

MEASURES

The PDSQ has undergone several rounds of study involving more than 3000 primary care and psychiatric outpatients. After each large validation study, the scale was revised based on a psychometric analysis of the subscales and items. The final version of the PDSQ consists of 126 questions assessing the symptoms of 13 DSM-IV disorders in 5 areas: eating disorders (bulimia/binge-eating disorder); mood disorders (major depressive disorder [MDD]); anxiety disorders (panic disorder, agoraphobia, PTSD, obsessive-compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder [GAD], and social phobia); substance use disorders (alcohol abuse/dependence and drug abuse/dependence); and somatoform disorders (somatization disorder and hypochondriasis). In addition, there is a 6-item psychosis screen. The disorders chosen for coverage were selected because they are the most prevalent in epidemiological surveys of the community21,22 and the most frequently reported in large clinical samples.16,23,24 Three subscales (mania, dysthymic disorder, and anorexia) were dropped because of poor psychometric performance after extensive investigation.

In determining the length of the PDSQ subscales, we tried to balance the desire to keep the scale brief so that it would be feasible to incorporate it into routine clinical practice with the desire to make the scale comprehensive so that most or all diagnostic criteria of the included disorders were assessed. The MDD subscale was the longest PDSQ subscale, at 22 items, because it assessed each of the 9 DSM-IV symptom criteria, and a separate question for each element of compound MDD criteria was included (eg, the sleep disturbance criterion includes questions of both increased and decreased sleep). The reason for including this level of detail was the potential treatment implications of the presence of vegetative and reverse vegetative symptoms of MDD. The number of items on the other PDSQ subscales were as follows: PTSD (n = 15), bulimia/binge-eating disorder (n = 10), obsessive-compulsive disorder (n = 8), panic disorder (n = 8), psychosis (n = 6), agoraphobia (n = 11), social phobia (n = 15), alcohol abuse/dependence (n = 6), drug abuse/dependence (n = 6), GAD (n = 10), somatization (n = 5), and hypochondriasis (n = 5).

The PDSQ inquires about current and recent symptoms. Because the DSM-IV symptom-duration requirement varies by disorder, we adopted multiple time frames. We thought it would be too confusing and awkward to follow all of the DSM-IV duration requirements; therefore we simplified this by using 2 different time frames. All but 2 questions on the first 6 subscales (MDD, PTSD, bulimia/binge-eating disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, and psychosis) refer to the past 2 weeks. The exceptions are the first 2 questions on the PTSD subscale, which ask about having ever experienced or witnessed a traumatic event. The time frame for the other 7 subscales (agoraphobia, social phobia, alcohol abuse/dependence, drug abuse/dependence, GAD, somatization, and hypochondriasis) is the 6 months before the evaluation. We chose a longer time frame for these domains of psychopathology because the symptoms of some of these disorders are more intermittent and may not have been present during the 2 weeks before the evaluation. For example, problems associated with drugs and alcohol are often sporadic, in contrast to the daily symptoms of MDD. Similarly, phobic situations may be encountered on an irregular basis. For GAD and hypochondriasis, symptoms are assessed for the past 6 months because DSM-IV requires a 6-month duration to be diagnosed.

The PDSQ was intended to be administered and scored in the office before the initial diagnostic evaluation. Respondents easily understand the yes/no response format of the scale. To illustrate the content of the scale, Table 1 lists the items and format of the generalized anxiety disorder subscale. Items answered yes are scored 1, items answered no, 0. The items on each diagnostic subscale are grouped, and the subscales are clearly demarcated from each other. This organization of the PDSQ facilitates rapid hand-scoring that makes it feasible to be used in routine clinical practice. (Copies of the PDSQ are available from Western Psychological Services, 12031 Wilshire Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90025-1251 [e-mail: CustSvc@wpspublish.com]).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Generalized Anxiety Disorder Subscale of the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ)*

In the validity study of the final version of the PDSQ, 994 psychiatric outpatients completed the scale.17 The 13 PDSQ subscales demonstrated good to excellent levels of internal consistency. Cronbach α was greater than .80 for 12 of the 13 subscales, and the mean of the α coefficients was .86. Test-retest reliability was examined in the 185 subjects who completed the PDSQ 2 times less than a week apart. Test-retest reliability coefficients were greater than 0.80 for 9 subscales, and the mean of the test-retest correlation coefficients was 0.83. The convergent and discriminant validity of the PDSQ subscales25 was examined in 361 patients who completed a package of questionnaires at home less than a week after completing the PDSQ. The booklet included measures of symptoms related to each of the PDSQ symptoms domains.7,2640 Every PDSQ subscale was more highly correlated with the concordant validity scale assessing the same symptom domain vs other symptoms domains. Across all subscales, the mean correlation between the PDSQ subscales and their respective validity scale was 0.66, while the mean correlation between PDSQ subscales and measures of other symptom domains was 0.25. Finally, for each of the disorders assessed by the PDSQ, the mean diagnosis-specific subscale score in patients with and without that DSM-IV diagnosis were compared. For every PDSQ subscale, scores were significantly higher for patients with, vs without, the corresponding diagnosis.

The core of the diagnostic evaluation was the January 1995 DSM-IV patient version of the SCID. The Axis I version of the SCID covers 7 DSM-IV sections: mood, psychotic, substance use, anxiety, somatoform, adjustment, and eating disorders. For 3 symptom domains—psychosis, bulimia, and somatization—we combined patients with related diagnoses. The psychosis group included patients diagnosed as having schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, psychotic disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), MDD with psychotic features, and bipolar depression with psychotic features. The bulimia group included subjects diagnosed as having binge-eating disorder (a DSM-IV appendix diagnosis that would otherwise be captured as part of the eating disorder NOS category), as well as bulimia nervosa. The somatization group included patients diagnosed as having somatization disorder and undifferentiated somatoform disorder. Finally, when examining the PDSQ MDD subscale, we combined patients with MDD, bipolar I depression, bipolar II depression, and 4 patients who met full criteria for MDD but also had nonbizarre delusions outside of the mood episode. According to DSM-IV, these 4 patients were diagnosed as having psychotic disorder NOS and depressive disorder NOS.

DATA ANALYSIS

There are several excellent articles describing the descriptive statistics of test performance.4145 Despite these, in several studies of the performance of self-administered screening tests, incorrect definitions and miscalculations of these statistics were found46; therefore, we present a brief overview of this area.

Sensitivity refers to a test's ability to correctly identify individuals with the disorder, whereas specificity refers to a test's ability to identify persons who are not ill. Sensitivity and specificity provide useful psychometric information about a test; however, the clinically more meaningful conditional probabilities are positive and negative predictive values. These values indicate the probability that an individual is ill or not ill given that the test identifies them as ill or not ill. Accordingly, positive predictive value is the percentage of individuals classified as ill by the test who truly are ill, whereas negative predictive value is the percentage of individuals classified not ill by the test who truly are not ill.

Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values are not invariant properties of a test—they are a function of the cutoff point used to distinguish cases from noncases, they are influenced by disease prevalence, and they are related to each other. Four axioms characterize these relationships: (1) Lowering a test's cutoff score to identify cases increases the test's sensitivity and decreases its specificity. (2) Conversely, raising the test threshold to identify cases decreases the test's sensitivity and increases its specificity. (3) At constant sensitivity and specificity, a test's positive predictive value is higher in samples where disease prevalence is greater. (4) At constant sensitivity and specificity, a test's negative predictive value is higher in samples where disease prevalence is lower.

Depending on the instrument's purpose, cutoff scores might be selected to optimize the sensitivity or specificity of the scale.47,48 In the present report, we describe the diagnostic performance of the PDSQ subscales across the range of cutoff scores. We determined the average specificity and positive and negative predictive value across the PDSQ subscales when sensitivity was 80%, 85%, and 90%. When the values of sensitivity were not exactly 80%, 85%, or 90%, we extrapolated the values of the other diagnostic performance statistics. For example, the agoraphobia subscale had no corresponding cutoff for a sensitivity of 85%. We extrapolated from the sensitivity of 82% and 88% (specificity of 83% and 75%), and estimated that at a sensitivity of 85% the agoraphobia subscale would have a specificity of 79%. We conducted receiver operating curve analyses to completely determine the subscales' diagnostic performance across the range of cutoff points and to allow us to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the different subscales by examining their areas under the curve (AUCs).48,49

The data in Table 2 show the demographic and diagnostic characteristics of the sample. The majority of the subjects were white, female, married or single, and had some college education. The mean (SD) age of the sample was 37.8 (11.9) years. The most frequent DSM-IV diagnoses were MDD (47.9%), social phobia (26.5%), GAD (17.5%), and panic disorder (17.0%).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of 630 Psychiatric Outpatients*

The data in Table 3 and Table 4 show that the PDSQ subscales' diagnostic properties varied in a predictable manner according to the cutoff score—as the threshold increased sensitivity decreased and specificity increased. At respective cutoff scores resulting in a sensitivity of 80%, subscale specificities ranged from a high of 91% for the bulimia and drug abuse/dependence subscales to a low of 58% for the somatization subscale. The mean specificity across all subscales when subscale sensitivity was 80%, 85%, and 90% was 78%, 73%, and 66%, respectively. (It should be noted that the psychosis subscale did not achieve a sensitivity of 80%. For this subscale, our analysis included the corresponding diagnostic statistics for the subscale's maximum sensitivity of 75%. In our other analyses, if the subscale did not achieve a sensitivity of 85% or 90%, the subscale was not included in the calculation of average specificity and predictive values across subscales.) When subscale sensitivity was 80%, 85%, and 90%, the mean positive predictive value across the subscales was 32%, 31%, and 30%, and the mean negative predictive value was 95%, 96%, and 97%, respectively.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Sensitivity and Specificity of Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire Subscales at Different Cutoff Scores in 630 Psychiatric Outpatients*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Positive and Negative Predictive Value of Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire Subscales at Different Cutoff Scores in 630 Psychiatric Outpatients*

Receiver operating characteristic curves were determined for each subscale and all AUCs were significant (Figure 1). All areas under the curve were above 0.75, ranging from 0.76 to 0.92 with a mean of 0.85.

Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Receiver operating curves for each of the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire subscales in 630 psychiatric outpatients. All curves were significant at P<.001. AUC indicates area under the curve; please see the first footnote to Table 3 for additional subscale abbreviations.

Graphic Jump Location

In the present article, we have described the diagnostic properties of the PDSQ, a self-report scale designed to assess the most common DSM-IV Axis I disorders presenting in outpatient settings. Longer, multidimensional questionnaires, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 250 and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory,51 have been used as diagnostic aids; however, they were not designed to be congruent with the current diagnostic nomenclature. Moreover, these inventories are too long, and their scoring too time-consuming, to be routinely completed in the early 1980sand scored in an office waiting area before the initial evaluation. Other scales have been developed to assess specific DSM-IV Axis I disorders such as MDD,4 PTSD,7 and bulimia,8 but they are limited to only one type of pathology. The self-report version of the Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders assesses multiple disorders, but it was developed for use in primary care settings.52

The PDSQ was intended as a diagnostic aid to be used in clinical practice to facilitate the efficiency of conducting the initial diagnostic evaluation. Consequently, we recommend that a cutoff resulting in diagnostic sensitivity of 90% be chosen when using the scale in clinical practice. Table 4 highlights the cutoff scores on each subscale corresponding to a sensitivity of 90%. From a clinical perspective, it is most important that the diagnostic aid have good sensitivity and corresponding high negative predictive value. With high negative predictive value, the clinician can be confident that when the test indicates that the disorder is not present there is little need to inquire about that disorder's symptoms. False positives are less of a problem for a screening questionnaire because their major cost is the time a clinician takes to determine that the disorder is not present. Presumably, this is time the clinician would have nonetheless spent for the same purpose. Based on the cutoffs resulting in a sensitivity of 90%, the mean negative predictive value of the PDSQ subscales was 97%, and the false positive rate was 34%.

It is important to understand what might contribute to false-positive results. In our analyses, patients diagnosed as having "subthreshold" DSM-IV disorders (ie, partial remission, or NOS) were not counted as cases. Cases below the threshold of full diagnostic criteria were not rare. Elsewhere, we examined the frequency of anxiety disorders in depressed outpatients and found that 10.7% of the patients had an anxiety disorder in partial remission at the time of the evaluation and 15.3% had a current anxiety disorder NOS.53 Not surprisingly, patients with subthreshold disorders scored significantly higher on the PDSQ subscale than patients without the disorder, although lower than patients who met full diagnostic criteria. Thus, some of the patients who were false positives had clinically significant symptoms of the disorder being assessed, although they did not meet full diagnostic criteria for a current disorder.

Criteria overlap among the DSM-IV disorders will result in false positives in any scale that follows the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. As has been discussed by others, the high rates of comorbidity among the DSM-IV disorders may be caused, in part, by the difficulty in clearly demarcating the boundary between different syndromes,5456 and some symptoms are inclusion criteria of more than 1 disorder.

Another assessment issue that could result in false-positive results on some of the PDSQ subscales is different time frames covered by the SCID and PDSQ. Our rule for distinguishing between current and past episodes on the SCID was the same for all disorders—after 2 months of symptom resolution, the disorder was considered a past diagnosis. This followed the DSM-IV suggestion for defining remission of a depressive episode. However, on the PDSQ, the questions assessing some disorders, such as alcohol and substance abuse/dependence, referred to the past 6 months. Thus, some subjects who quit drinking or abusing drugs more than 2 months before the evaluation, but less than 6 months ago, might be false positive on the PDSQ because we would have diagnosed them as having a past, not a current, substance use problem. In fact, it was our experience that even some individuals who quit abusing substances before 6 months ago would respond positively to the PDSQ questions. Consistent with this, patients with a past diagnosis of alcohol or drug abuse/dependence scored significantly higher than patients without a history of alcohol or drug problems. These post hoc analyses indicate that many of the false positives on the PDSQ are the result of the detection of clinically important symptoms.

A possible limitation of the study was our failure to randomize the order of presentation of the PDSQ and SCID assessments; thus, we were unable to examine the influence of order effects. Instead, we studied the PDSQ as we expect a screening measure to be used—preceding the more detailed diagnostic evaluation.

The present sample was drawn from a large general adult outpatient private practice setting in which the most common presenting problems were mood and anxiety disorders. Rhode Island has a strong community mental health center network that treats most of the chronically mentally ill patients, and this accounts, in part, for the low prevalence rates of psychotic disorders. The practice does not have a specialist in the treatment of substance use disorders; thus patients with a primary substance use problem are infrequently encountered. It will be important to replicate and extend the present findings to samples with different demographic and clinical characteristics. Another direction for future research is the performance of the PDSQ in primary care settings. Studies of an earlier version of the scale found that it was well received by primary care patients, and it possessed favorable psychometric properties.57,58

We developed the PDSQ to aid clinicians in making psychiatric diagnoses. It is common in medical practices to have patients complete some initial paperwork that is reviewed before the initial visit. We recommend that the PDSQ be used in a similar way. That is, the responses to the scale should be reviewed before the face-to-face encounter, and the information should make it less likely that areas of psychopathology are overlooked. Of course, a thorough diagnostic interview is the diagnostic standard of care. There are no special questions on the PDSQ that allows it to detect psychopathology that otherwise would go undetected during a clinical evaluation. However, clinicians often do not have the time to be as comprehensive as they would like. It is our hope that the PDSQ can improve the efficiency of the diagnostic evaluation by guiding clinicians toward symptom areas that require more vs less assessment. Elsewhere, we described how the PDSQ validly detected PTSD in patients whose conditions were not diagnosed with PTSD by their treating clinicians.59

During the past few years, a cottage industry has arisen promoting products that assist in diagnostic and outcome assessment. The American Psychological Association60 has clearly written guidelines for test development; however, most of the tools marketed at professional meetings as DSM-IV diagnostic aids have not been subjected to these rigorous test development procedures. Research demonstrating the reliability and validity of these tools rarely has been published in peer-reviewed journals. Nevertheless, these products are advertised and sold, and some insurance companies require their use. Diagnostic (and outcomes) evaluations are an important component of case formulation and treatment planning, and professional organizations might want to take a more active role in monitoring instruments that are intended to influence the diagnostic process.

Accepted for publication October 3, 2000.

Supported in part by grant MH56404 from the National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Md (Dr Mattia).

Reprints: Mark Zimmerman, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Rhode Island Hospital, 235 Plain St, Suite 501, Providence, RI 02905 (e-mail: mzimmerman@lifespan.org).

Endicott  JSpitzer  RL A diagnostic interview: the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978;35837- 844
Link to Article
Robins  LNHelzer  JECroughan  JRatcliff  KS National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule: its history, characteristics, and validity. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1981;38381- 389
Link to Article
First  MBSpitzer  RLWilliams  JBWGibbon  M Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID).  Washington, DC American Psychiatric Association1997;
Zimmerman  MCoryell  WCorenthal  CWilson  S A self-report scale to diagnose major depressive disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1986;431076- 1081
Link to Article
Goldston  DBO'Hara  MWSchartz  HA Reliability, validity, and preliminary normative data for the Inventory to Diagnose Depression in a college population. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1990;2212- 215
Kuhner  CVeiel  HO Psychometrische und diagnostiche Eigenschaften einer duetschsprachigen Version des Inventory to Diagnose Depression (IDD). Diagnostica. 1993;39229- 321
Foa  EBRiggs  DSDancu  CVRothbaum  BO Reliability and validity of a brief instrument for assessing post-traumatic stress disorder. J Trauma Stress. 1993;6459- 473
Link to Article
Thelan  MHFarmer  JWonderlich  SSmith  M A revision of the Bulimia Test: the BULIT-R. Psychol Assess J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;3119- 124
Maser  JDCloninger  CR Comorbidity of Mood and Anxiety Disorders.  Washington, DC American Psychiatric Association1990;
Sabshin  M Comorbidity: a central concern of psychiatry in the 1990s. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1991;42345
Coryell  WEndicott  JAndreasen  NCKeller  MBClayton  PJHirschfield  RMScheftner  WAWinokur  G Depression and panic attacks: the significance of overlap as reflected in follow-up and family study data. Am J Psychiatry. 1988;145293- 300
Coryell  WNoyes  R Placebo response in panic disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1988;1451138- 1140
Grunhaus  L Clinical and psychobiological characteristics of simultaneous panic disorder and major depression. Am J Psychiatry. 1988;1451214- 1221
Keller  MBKlerman  GLLavori  PWCoryell  WEndicott  JTaylor  J Long-term outcomes of episodes of major depression: clinical and public health significance. JAMA. 1984;252788- 792
Link to Article
Shear  MKGreeno  CKang  JLudewig  DFrank  ESwartz  HAHanekamp  M Diagnosis of nopsychotic patients in community clinics. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157581- 587
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice: is comorbidity being missed? Compr Psychiatry. 1999;40182- 191
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire: development, reliability and validity. Compr Psychiatry.
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI The reliability and validity of a screening questionnaire for 13 DSM-IV Axis I disorders (the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire) in psychiatric outpatients. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60677- 683
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI Body dysmorphic disorder in psychiatric outpatients: recognition, prevalence, comorbidity, demographic, and clinical correlates. Compr Psychiatry. 1998;39265- 270
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI Axis I diagnostic comorbidity and borderline personality disorder. Compr Psychiatry. 1999;40245- 252
Link to Article
Kessler  RCMcGonagle  KAZhao  SNelson  CBHughes  MEshelman  SWittchen  HUKendler  KS Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;518- 19
Link to Article
Robins  LNLocke  BZRegier  DA An overview of psychiatric disorders in America. Robins  LNRegier  DAPsychiatric Disorders in America The Epidemiologic Catchment Study New York, NY Free Press1991;
Koenigsberg  HWKaplan  RDGilmore  MMCooper  AM The relationship between syndrome and personality disorder in DSM-III: experience with 2,462 patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1985;142207- 212
Mezzich  JEFabrega  HCoffman  GAHaley  R DSM-III disorders in a large sample of psychiatric patients: frequency and specificity of diagnoses. Am J Psychiatry. 1989;146212- 219
Campbell  DTFiske  DW Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multi-method matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;5681- 105
Link to Article
Garner  DMOlmstead  MPPolivy  J Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. Int J Eat Disord. 1983;215- 34
Link to Article
Beck  ATRush  AJShaw  BFEmery  G Cognitive Therapy of Depression.  New York, NY Guilford Press1979;
Shugar  GSchertzer  SToner  BBDiGasbarro  I Development, use, and factor analysis of a self-report inventory for mania. Compr Psychiatry. 1992;33325- 331
Link to Article
Leary  MR A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1983;9371- 375
Link to Article
Marks  IMMathews  AM Brief standard self-rating for phobic patients. Behav Res Ther. 1979;17263- 267
Link to Article
Turner  SMBeidel  DCDancu  CVStanley  MA An empirically derived inventory to measure social fears and anxiety: the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory. Psychol Assess J Consult Clin Psychol. 1989;135- 40
Hodgson  RJRachman  S Obsessional compulsive complaints. Behav Res Ther. 1977;10111- 117
Link to Article
Meyer  TJMiller  MLMetzger  RLBorkovec  TD Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behav Res Ther. 1990;28487- 495
Link to Article
Beck  ATBrown  GEpstein  NSteer  R An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56893- 897
Link to Article
Kellner  R The Symptom-Rating Test. Sartorius  NBan  TAAssessment of Depression New York, NY Springer-Verlag1985;
Selzer  ML The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: the quest for a new diagnostic instrument. Am J Psychiatry. 1971;1271653- 1658
Skinner  HA The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addict Behav. 1982;7363- 371
Link to Article
Pilowsky  I Dimensions of hypochondriasis. Br J Psychiatry. 1967;11389- 93
Link to Article
Othmer  EDeSouza  C A screening test for somatization disorder (hysteria). Am J Psychiatry. 1985;1421146- 1149
Swartz  MHughes  DGeorge  LBlazer  DLanderman  RBucholz  K Developing a screening index for community studies of somatization disorder. J Psychiatr Res. 1986;20335- 343
Link to Article
Baldessarini  RJFinklestein  SArana  GW The predictive power of diagnostic tests and the effect of prevalence of illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983;40569- 573
Link to Article
Fletcher  RFletcher  SWagner  E Clinical Epidemiology.  Baltimore, Md Williams & Wilkins1988;
Griner  PFMayewski  RJMushlin  AIGreenland  P Selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests and procedures: principles and applications. Ann Intern Med. 1981;94553- 600
Mausner  JKramer  S Epidemiology: An Introductory Text.  Philadelphia, Pa WB Saunders Co1985;
Sackett  DL A primer on the precision and accuracy of the clinical examination. JAMA. 1992;2672638- 2644
Link to Article
Kessel  JBZimmerman  M Reporting errors in studies of the diagnostic performance of self-administered questionnaires: extent of the problem, recommendations for standardized presentation of results, and implications for the peer review process. Psychol Assess. 1993;5395- 399
Link to Article
Mossman  DSomoza  E Maximizing diagnostic information from the dexamethasone suppression test: an approach to criterion selection using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1989;46653- 660
Link to Article
Hsiao  JKBartko  JJPotter  WZ Diagnosing diagnoses: receiver operating characteristic methods and psychiatry. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1989;46664- 667
Link to Article
Murphy  JMBerwick  DMWeinstein  MCBorus  JFBudman  SHKlerman  GL Performance of screening and diagnostic tests: application of receiver operating characteric analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1987;44550- 555
Link to Article
Butcher  JNGraham  JRWilliams  CLBen-Porath  YS Development and Use of the MMPI-2 Content Scales.  Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press1990;
Millon  T Manual for the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III).  Minneapolis, Minn National Computer Systems1994;
Spitzer  RLKroenke  KWilliams  JBPatient Health Questionnaire Primary Care Study Group, Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME MD: the PHQ primary care study. JAMA. 1999;2821737- 1744
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMcDermut  WMattia  JI Frequency of anxiety disorders in psychiatric outpatients with major depressive disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;1571337- 1340
Link to Article
Moras  KBarlow  D Definitions of secondary depression: effects on comorbidity and outcome in anxiety disorders. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1992;2827- 33
Barlow  DHBach  AKTracey  SA The nature and development of anxiety and depression: back to the future. Routh  DKDeRubeis  RJThe Science of Clinical Psychology Accomplishments and Future Directions Washington, DC American Psychological Association1998;95- 120
Livesley  WJ Suggestions for a framework for an empirically based classification of personality disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 1998;43137- 147
Zimmerman  MFarber  NJHartung  JLush  DTKuzma  MA Screening for psychiatric disorders in medical patients: a feasibility and patient acceptance study. Med Care. 1994;32603- 608
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MLush  DTFarber  NJHartung  JPlescia  GKuzma  MALish  J Primary care patients' reactions to mental health screening. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1996;26431- 441
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI Is posttraumatic stress disorder underdiagnosed in routine clinical settings? J Nerv Ment Dis. 1999;187420- 428
Link to Article
American Psychological Association, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.  Washington, DC American Psychological Association1985;

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption

Receiver operating curves for each of the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire subscales in 630 psychiatric outpatients. All curves were significant at P<.001. AUC indicates area under the curve; please see the first footnote to Table 3 for additional subscale abbreviations.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1. Generalized Anxiety Disorder Subscale of the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ)*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of 630 Psychiatric Outpatients*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3. Sensitivity and Specificity of Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire Subscales at Different Cutoff Scores in 630 Psychiatric Outpatients*
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4. Positive and Negative Predictive Value of Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire Subscales at Different Cutoff Scores in 630 Psychiatric Outpatients*

References

Endicott  JSpitzer  RL A diagnostic interview: the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978;35837- 844
Link to Article
Robins  LNHelzer  JECroughan  JRatcliff  KS National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule: its history, characteristics, and validity. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1981;38381- 389
Link to Article
First  MBSpitzer  RLWilliams  JBWGibbon  M Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID).  Washington, DC American Psychiatric Association1997;
Zimmerman  MCoryell  WCorenthal  CWilson  S A self-report scale to diagnose major depressive disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1986;431076- 1081
Link to Article
Goldston  DBO'Hara  MWSchartz  HA Reliability, validity, and preliminary normative data for the Inventory to Diagnose Depression in a college population. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1990;2212- 215
Kuhner  CVeiel  HO Psychometrische und diagnostiche Eigenschaften einer duetschsprachigen Version des Inventory to Diagnose Depression (IDD). Diagnostica. 1993;39229- 321
Foa  EBRiggs  DSDancu  CVRothbaum  BO Reliability and validity of a brief instrument for assessing post-traumatic stress disorder. J Trauma Stress. 1993;6459- 473
Link to Article
Thelan  MHFarmer  JWonderlich  SSmith  M A revision of the Bulimia Test: the BULIT-R. Psychol Assess J Consult Clin Psychol. 1991;3119- 124
Maser  JDCloninger  CR Comorbidity of Mood and Anxiety Disorders.  Washington, DC American Psychiatric Association1990;
Sabshin  M Comorbidity: a central concern of psychiatry in the 1990s. Hosp Community Psychiatry. 1991;42345
Coryell  WEndicott  JAndreasen  NCKeller  MBClayton  PJHirschfield  RMScheftner  WAWinokur  G Depression and panic attacks: the significance of overlap as reflected in follow-up and family study data. Am J Psychiatry. 1988;145293- 300
Coryell  WNoyes  R Placebo response in panic disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 1988;1451138- 1140
Grunhaus  L Clinical and psychobiological characteristics of simultaneous panic disorder and major depression. Am J Psychiatry. 1988;1451214- 1221
Keller  MBKlerman  GLLavori  PWCoryell  WEndicott  JTaylor  J Long-term outcomes of episodes of major depression: clinical and public health significance. JAMA. 1984;252788- 792
Link to Article
Shear  MKGreeno  CKang  JLudewig  DFrank  ESwartz  HAHanekamp  M Diagnosis of nopsychotic patients in community clinics. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;157581- 587
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice: is comorbidity being missed? Compr Psychiatry. 1999;40182- 191
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire: development, reliability and validity. Compr Psychiatry.
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI The reliability and validity of a screening questionnaire for 13 DSM-IV Axis I disorders (the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire) in psychiatric outpatients. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999;60677- 683
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI Body dysmorphic disorder in psychiatric outpatients: recognition, prevalence, comorbidity, demographic, and clinical correlates. Compr Psychiatry. 1998;39265- 270
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI Axis I diagnostic comorbidity and borderline personality disorder. Compr Psychiatry. 1999;40245- 252
Link to Article
Kessler  RCMcGonagle  KAZhao  SNelson  CBHughes  MEshelman  SWittchen  HUKendler  KS Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;518- 19
Link to Article
Robins  LNLocke  BZRegier  DA An overview of psychiatric disorders in America. Robins  LNRegier  DAPsychiatric Disorders in America The Epidemiologic Catchment Study New York, NY Free Press1991;
Koenigsberg  HWKaplan  RDGilmore  MMCooper  AM The relationship between syndrome and personality disorder in DSM-III: experience with 2,462 patients. Am J Psychiatry. 1985;142207- 212
Mezzich  JEFabrega  HCoffman  GAHaley  R DSM-III disorders in a large sample of psychiatric patients: frequency and specificity of diagnoses. Am J Psychiatry. 1989;146212- 219
Campbell  DTFiske  DW Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multi-method matrix. Psychol Bull. 1959;5681- 105
Link to Article
Garner  DMOlmstead  MPPolivy  J Development and validation of a multidimensional eating disorder inventory for anorexia nervosa and bulimia. Int J Eat Disord. 1983;215- 34
Link to Article
Beck  ATRush  AJShaw  BFEmery  G Cognitive Therapy of Depression.  New York, NY Guilford Press1979;
Shugar  GSchertzer  SToner  BBDiGasbarro  I Development, use, and factor analysis of a self-report inventory for mania. Compr Psychiatry. 1992;33325- 331
Link to Article
Leary  MR A brief version of the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1983;9371- 375
Link to Article
Marks  IMMathews  AM Brief standard self-rating for phobic patients. Behav Res Ther. 1979;17263- 267
Link to Article
Turner  SMBeidel  DCDancu  CVStanley  MA An empirically derived inventory to measure social fears and anxiety: the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory. Psychol Assess J Consult Clin Psychol. 1989;135- 40
Hodgson  RJRachman  S Obsessional compulsive complaints. Behav Res Ther. 1977;10111- 117
Link to Article
Meyer  TJMiller  MLMetzger  RLBorkovec  TD Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behav Res Ther. 1990;28487- 495
Link to Article
Beck  ATBrown  GEpstein  NSteer  R An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56893- 897
Link to Article
Kellner  R The Symptom-Rating Test. Sartorius  NBan  TAAssessment of Depression New York, NY Springer-Verlag1985;
Selzer  ML The Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test: the quest for a new diagnostic instrument. Am J Psychiatry. 1971;1271653- 1658
Skinner  HA The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addict Behav. 1982;7363- 371
Link to Article
Pilowsky  I Dimensions of hypochondriasis. Br J Psychiatry. 1967;11389- 93
Link to Article
Othmer  EDeSouza  C A screening test for somatization disorder (hysteria). Am J Psychiatry. 1985;1421146- 1149
Swartz  MHughes  DGeorge  LBlazer  DLanderman  RBucholz  K Developing a screening index for community studies of somatization disorder. J Psychiatr Res. 1986;20335- 343
Link to Article
Baldessarini  RJFinklestein  SArana  GW The predictive power of diagnostic tests and the effect of prevalence of illness. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1983;40569- 573
Link to Article
Fletcher  RFletcher  SWagner  E Clinical Epidemiology.  Baltimore, Md Williams & Wilkins1988;
Griner  PFMayewski  RJMushlin  AIGreenland  P Selection and interpretation of diagnostic tests and procedures: principles and applications. Ann Intern Med. 1981;94553- 600
Mausner  JKramer  S Epidemiology: An Introductory Text.  Philadelphia, Pa WB Saunders Co1985;
Sackett  DL A primer on the precision and accuracy of the clinical examination. JAMA. 1992;2672638- 2644
Link to Article
Kessel  JBZimmerman  M Reporting errors in studies of the diagnostic performance of self-administered questionnaires: extent of the problem, recommendations for standardized presentation of results, and implications for the peer review process. Psychol Assess. 1993;5395- 399
Link to Article
Mossman  DSomoza  E Maximizing diagnostic information from the dexamethasone suppression test: an approach to criterion selection using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1989;46653- 660
Link to Article
Hsiao  JKBartko  JJPotter  WZ Diagnosing diagnoses: receiver operating characteristic methods and psychiatry. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1989;46664- 667
Link to Article
Murphy  JMBerwick  DMWeinstein  MCBorus  JFBudman  SHKlerman  GL Performance of screening and diagnostic tests: application of receiver operating characteric analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1987;44550- 555
Link to Article
Butcher  JNGraham  JRWilliams  CLBen-Porath  YS Development and Use of the MMPI-2 Content Scales.  Minneapolis University of Minnesota Press1990;
Millon  T Manual for the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III).  Minneapolis, Minn National Computer Systems1994;
Spitzer  RLKroenke  KWilliams  JBPatient Health Questionnaire Primary Care Study Group, Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME MD: the PHQ primary care study. JAMA. 1999;2821737- 1744
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMcDermut  WMattia  JI Frequency of anxiety disorders in psychiatric outpatients with major depressive disorder. Am J Psychiatry. 2000;1571337- 1340
Link to Article
Moras  KBarlow  D Definitions of secondary depression: effects on comorbidity and outcome in anxiety disorders. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1992;2827- 33
Barlow  DHBach  AKTracey  SA The nature and development of anxiety and depression: back to the future. Routh  DKDeRubeis  RJThe Science of Clinical Psychology Accomplishments and Future Directions Washington, DC American Psychological Association1998;95- 120
Livesley  WJ Suggestions for a framework for an empirically based classification of personality disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 1998;43137- 147
Zimmerman  MFarber  NJHartung  JLush  DTKuzma  MA Screening for psychiatric disorders in medical patients: a feasibility and patient acceptance study. Med Care. 1994;32603- 608
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MLush  DTFarber  NJHartung  JPlescia  GKuzma  MALish  J Primary care patients' reactions to mental health screening. Int J Psychiatry Med. 1996;26431- 441
Link to Article
Zimmerman  MMattia  JI Is posttraumatic stress disorder underdiagnosed in routine clinical settings? J Nerv Ment Dis. 1999;187420- 428
Link to Article
American Psychological Association, Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.  Washington, DC American Psychological Association1985;

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Submit a Comment

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Web of Science® Times Cited: 170

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles