Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disorder-specific instruments for depression: An assessment in three longitudinal datasets.
assessment
depression
psychometrics
responsiveness
routine outcome monitoring
Journal
Depression and anxiety
ISSN: 1520-6394
Titre abrégé: Depress Anxiety
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9708816
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2019
01 2019
Historique:
received:
14
11
2017
revised:
03
04
2018
accepted:
29
05
2018
pubmed:
7
9
2018
medline:
19
3
2019
entrez:
7
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) may enhance individual treatment and is also advocated as a means to compare the outcome of different treatment programs or providers. There is debate on the optimal instruments to be used for these separate tasks. Three sets with longitudinal data from ROM were analyzed with correlational analysis and repeated measures ANOVAs, allowing for a head-to-head comparison of measures regarding their sensitivity to detect change. The responsiveness of three disorder-specific instruments, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, and the Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire, was compared to three generic instruments, the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90), the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45), and the Brief Symptom Inventory, respectively. In two of the three datasets, disorder-specific measures were more responsive compared to the total score on generic instruments. Subscale scores for depression embedded within generic instruments are second best and almost match disorder-specific scales in responsiveness. No evidence of a desynchronous response on outcome measures was found. The present study compares measures head-to-had, and responsiveness is not assessed against an external criterion, such as clinical recovery. Disorder-specific measures yield the most precise assessment for individual treatment and are recommended for clinical use. Generic measures may allow for comparisons across diagnostic groups and their embedded subscales approach the responsiveness of disorder-specific measures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) may enhance individual treatment and is also advocated as a means to compare the outcome of different treatment programs or providers. There is debate on the optimal instruments to be used for these separate tasks.
METHODS
Three sets with longitudinal data from ROM were analyzed with correlational analysis and repeated measures ANOVAs, allowing for a head-to-head comparison of measures regarding their sensitivity to detect change. The responsiveness of three disorder-specific instruments, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, and the Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire, was compared to three generic instruments, the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90), the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45), and the Brief Symptom Inventory, respectively.
RESULTS
In two of the three datasets, disorder-specific measures were more responsive compared to the total score on generic instruments. Subscale scores for depression embedded within generic instruments are second best and almost match disorder-specific scales in responsiveness. No evidence of a desynchronous response on outcome measures was found.
LIMITATIONS
The present study compares measures head-to-had, and responsiveness is not assessed against an external criterion, such as clinical recovery.
DISCUSSION
Disorder-specific measures yield the most precise assessment for individual treatment and are recommended for clinical use. Generic measures may allow for comparisons across diagnostic groups and their embedded subscales approach the responsiveness of disorder-specific measures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30188602
doi: 10.1002/da.22809
pmc: PMC6586043
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
93-102Informations de copyright
© 2018, The Authors. Depression and Anxiety published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2018;60(1):11-19
pubmed: 29341052
J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Dec;54(12):1204-17
pubmed: 11750189
Psychol Med. 1996 May;26(3):477-86
pubmed: 8733206
J Abnorm Psychol. 1994 Feb;103(1):103-16
pubmed: 8040472
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2006;2:111-33
pubmed: 17716066
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Sep;77:68-77
pubmed: 26994662
J Clin Epidemiol. 2000 May;53(5):459-68
pubmed: 10812317
Value Health. 2013 Jan-Feb;16(1):185-94
pubmed: 23337230
Behav Res Ther. 2017 Dec;99:89-97
pubmed: 29024821
Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2011 Aug;261(5):357-67
pubmed: 21132437
J Affect Disord. 2016 Jan 1;189:314-20
pubmed: 26458184
Qual Life Res. 2003 Jun;12(4):349-62
pubmed: 12797708
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961 Jun;4:561-71
pubmed: 13688369
Psychiatry Res. 1986 May;18(1):65-87
pubmed: 3737788
Health Technol Assess. 2014 May;18(34):vii-viii, xiii-xxv, 1-188
pubmed: 24857402
J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59 Suppl 20:22-33;quiz 34-57
pubmed: 9881538
J Clin Epidemiol. 2003 Jan;56(1):52-60
pubmed: 12589870
Psychol Assess. 2016 Nov;28(11):1354-1367
pubmed: 26821198
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2013;9:91-121
pubmed: 23537483
Behav Res Ther. 2007 Jul;45(7):1609-17
pubmed: 16959211
J Abnorm Psychol. 1995 Feb;104(1):3-14
pubmed: 7897050
Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2017;59(5):278-285
pubmed: 28593621
Br J Psychiatry. 1979 Apr;134:382-9
pubmed: 444788
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2011 Jan-Feb;18(1):1-12
pubmed: 20238371
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2017 Apr 18;15(1):75
pubmed: 28420397
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960 Feb;23:56-62
pubmed: 14399272
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Jan;67(1):73-86
pubmed: 24262771
J Affect Disord. 2010 Sep;125(1-3):146-54
pubmed: 20074811
Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2015;57(7):517-25
pubmed: 26189420
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2017 Jan;24(1):61-71
pubmed: 26450457
Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2016;58(1):48-54
pubmed: 26779755
J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2011 May;39(4):553-61
pubmed: 21210204
Tijdschr Psychiatr. 2007;49(6):393-7
pubmed: 17614093
Eur Psychiatry. 2005 Nov;20(7):510-9
pubmed: 16139488
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):34-42
pubmed: 17161752
Depress Anxiety. 2019 Jan;36(1):93-102
pubmed: 30188602
Psychiatry Res. 2012 Dec 30;200(2-3):904-10
pubmed: 22884307
Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77(6):358-64
pubmed: 18701832
Cardiol Young. 2014 Jun;24(3):469-77
pubmed: 23746330
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 Sep;59(566):e283-8
pubmed: 19761655
J Affect Disord. 1999 Dec;56(2-3):95-101
pubmed: 10701466
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2012;6:83-5
pubmed: 22298947