Amanda L Stuart1, Julie A Pasco2, Felice N Jacka3, Sharon L Brennan4, Michael Berk5, Lana J Williams6. 1. Deakin University, School of Medicine, Geelong, Australia. Electronic address: amandh@barwonhealth.org.au. 2. Deakin University, School of Medicine, Geelong, Australia; NorthWest Academic Centre, The University of Melbourne, Sunshine Hospital, St Albans, Australia; Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia. Electronic address: juliep@barwonhealth.org.au. 3. Deakin University, School of Medicine, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Department of Psychiatry, Parkville, Australia. Electronic address: felice@barwonhealth.org.au. 4. Deakin University, School of Medicine, Geelong, Australia; NorthWest Academic Centre, The University of Melbourne, Sunshine Hospital, St Albans, Australia; Australian Institute for Musculoskeletal Sciences, St Albans, Australia. Electronic address: sharob@barwonhealth.org.au. 5. Deakin University, School of Medicine, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Department of Psychiatry, Parkville, Australia; Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, Parkville, Australia; Florey Institute for Neuroscience and Mental Health, Parkville, Australia. Electronic address: mikebe@barwonhealth.org.au. 6. Deakin University, School of Medicine, Geelong, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Department of Psychiatry, Parkville, Australia. Electronic address: lanaw@barwonhealth.org.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A self-report method seeking a binary response for assessing depression is a cost-effective and time-efficient way to obtain a psychiatric history, yet the reliability of this method is largely unknown. The aim of the study was to compare and assess the validity of two methods for identifying a past history of depression in a population-based study. METHODS: This study examined data collected from 891 men and 1086 women participating in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Self-reports of depression were compared with results obtained using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Research Version, Non-patient edition (SCID-I/NP). RESULTS: Using the SCID-I/NP, 146 (16.4%) men and 285 (26.2%) women met criteria for a lifetime depression. Of those participants, 61.0% (n=263) self-reported a history of depression. The level of agreement between self-reporting depression and the SCID-I/NP depression module was reasonably high; 61% sensitivity, 89.5% specificity and the overall level of agreement (kappa) was 0.5. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to other self-report instruments or be suitable for use in clinical samples. CONCLUSION: The SCID-I/NP remains the gold standard for identifying depression; however, given the moderate level of agreement between the self-report questionnaire and SCID-I/NP in our current study, we conclude that simple self-report methods can be used to identify depression with some degree of confidence.
BACKGROUND: A self-report method seeking a binary response for assessing depression is a cost-effective and time-efficient way to obtain a psychiatric history, yet the reliability of this method is largely unknown. The aim of the study was to compare and assess the validity of two methods for identifying a past history of depression in a population-based study. METHODS: This study examined data collected from 891 men and 1086 women participating in the Geelong Osteoporosis Study. Self-reports of depression were compared with results obtained using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Research Version, Non-patient edition (SCID-I/NP). RESULTS: Using the SCID-I/NP, 146 (16.4%) men and 285 (26.2%) women met criteria for a lifetime depression. Of those participants, 61.0% (n=263) self-reported a history of depression. The level of agreement between self-reporting depression and the SCID-I/NP depression module was reasonably high; 61% sensitivity, 89.5% specificity and the overall level of agreement (kappa) was 0.5. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable to other self-report instruments or be suitable for use in clinical samples. CONCLUSION: The SCID-I/NP remains the gold standard for identifying depression; however, given the moderate level of agreement between the self-report questionnaire and SCID-I/NP in our current study, we conclude that simple self-report methods can be used to identify depression with some degree of confidence.
Authors: A Feinberg; P M Lopez; K Wyka; N Islam; L Seidl; E Drackett; A Mata; J Pinzon; M R Baker; J Lopez; C Trinh-Shevrin; D Shelley; Z Bailey; K A Maybank; L E Thorpe Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Andrea K Graham; Alexa Minc; Erin Staab; David G Beiser; Robert D Gibbons; Neda Laiteerapong Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Nicholas R Boileau; Joel S Perlmutter; Kelvin L Chou; Julie C Stout; Jane S Paulsen; Michael K McCormack; David Cella; Martha A Nance; Jin-Shei Lai; Praveen Dayalu Journal: J Neurol Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Noreen L Watson; Jaimee L Heffner; Kristin E Mull; Jennifer B McClure; Jonathan B Bricker Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Adrienne L Johnson; Jesse Kaye; Timothy B Baker; Michael C Fiore; Jessica W Cook; Megan E Piper Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2019-12-12 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Corinna Rahe; Bernhard T Baune; Michael Unrath; Volker Arolt; Jürgen Wellmann; Heike Wersching; Klaus Berger Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2015-03-04 Impact factor: 3.630