Bizu Gelaye1, Mahlet G Tadesse2, Michelle A Williams3, Jesse R Fann4, Ann Vander Stoep5, Xiao-Hua Andrew Zhou6. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: bgelaye@hsph.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. 3. Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA. 4. Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rehabilitation Medicine and Epidemiology, Seattle, WA. 5. Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA. 6. Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the extent to which use of a hypothesized imperfect gold standard, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), biases the estimates of diagnostic accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). We also evaluate how statistical correction can be used to address this bias. METHODS: The study was conducted among 926 adults where structured interviews were conducted to collect information about participants' current major depressive disorder using PHQ-9 and CIDI instruments. First, we evaluated the relative psychometric properties of PHQ-9 using CIDI as a gold standard. Next, we used a Bayesian latent class model to correct for the bias. RESULTS: In comparison with CIDI, the relative sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-9 for detecting major depressive disorder at a cut point of 10 or more were 53.1% (95% confidence interval: 45.4%-60.8%) and 77.5% (95% confidence interval, 74.5%-80.5%), respectively. Using a Bayesian latent class model to correct for the bias arising from the use of an imperfect gold standard increased the sensitivity and specificity of PHQ-9 to 79.8% (95% Bayesian credible interval, 64.9%-90.8%) and 79.1% (95% Bayesian credible interval, 74.7%-83.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provided evidence that assessing diagnostic validity of mental health screening instrument, where application of a gold standard might not be available, can be accomplished by using appropriate statistical methods.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the extent to which use of a hypothesized imperfect gold standard, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), biases the estimates of diagnostic accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). We also evaluate how statistical correction can be used to address this bias. METHODS: The study was conducted among 926 adults where structured interviews were conducted to collect information about participants' current major depressive disorder using PHQ-9 and CIDI instruments. First, we evaluated the relative psychometric properties of PHQ-9 using CIDI as a gold standard. Next, we used a Bayesian latent class model to correct for the bias. RESULTS: In comparison with CIDI, the relative sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-9 for detecting major depressive disorder at a cut point of 10 or more were 53.1% (95% confidence interval: 45.4%-60.8%) and 77.5% (95% confidence interval, 74.5%-80.5%), respectively. Using a Bayesian latent class model to correct for the bias arising from the use of an imperfect gold standard increased the sensitivity and specificity of PHQ-9 to 79.8% (95% Bayesian credible interval, 64.9%-90.8%) and 79.1% (95% Bayesian credible interval, 74.7%-83.7%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provided evidence that assessing diagnostic validity of mental health screening instrument, where application of a gold standard might not be available, can be accomplished by using appropriate statistical methods.
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Jamie Abelson; Olga Demler; Javier I Escobar; Miriam Gibbon; Margaret E Guyer; Mary J Howes; Robert Jin; William A Vega; Ellen E Walters; Philip Wang; Alan Zaslavsky; Hui Zheng Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2004 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Katherine E Watkins; Allison J Ober; Karen Lamp; Mimi Lind; Claude Setodji; Karen Chan Osilla; Sarah B Hunter; Colleen M McCullough; Kirsten Becker; Praise O Iyiewuare; Allison Diamant; Keith Heinzerling; Harold Alan Pincus Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2017-10-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Katharine Bosanquet; Della Bailey; Simon Gilbody; Melissa Harden; Laura Manea; Sarah Nutbrown; Dean McMillan Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-12-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jorge Arias-de la Torre; Gemma Vilagut; Antoni Serrano-Blanco; Vicente Martín; Antonio José Molina; Jose M Valderas; Jordi Alonso Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Shamaila Mohsin; Ahmed Waqas; Najia Atif; Muhamamd Waqas Rabbani; Shahzad Ali Khan; Samina Bilal; Maria Sharif; Amina Bibi; Siham Sikander Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-26 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Salma M Khaled; Veena Davis; Iman Amro; Amal A M Ali; Peter W Woodruff; Peter M Haddad Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2022-04-09 Impact factor: 6.533