PURPOSE: Somatoform disorders (physical symptoms without medical explanation that cause dysfunction) are prevalent in the occupational health (OH) care setting and are associated with functional impairment and absenteeism. Availability of psychometric instruments aimed at assessing somatoform disorders is limited. In the OH setting, so far only the Patient-Health-Questionnaire 15 has been validated as screener for somatoform disorder, and has been shown to have moderate validity. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is frequently used in the OH setting but the Somatization subscale is not validated yet. The aim of this study is to validate the 4DSQ Somatization subscale as screener for DSM-IV somatoform disorder in the OH setting by using the MINI interview as gold standard. METHODS: Employees absent from work due to physical symptoms, for a period longer than 6 weeks and shorter than 2 years, were asked to participate in this study. They filled out the 4DSQ and underwent a MINI interview by telephone for DSM-IV classification. Specificity and sensitivity scores were calculated for all possible cut-off scores and a receiver operator curve was computed for the Somatization subscale. 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) were calculated for sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: The Somatization subscale of the 4DSQ has an optimal cut point of 9, with specificity and sensitivity equal to 64.3 % [95 % CI (53.6; 73.7 %)] and 60.9 % [95 % CI (40.8; 77.8 %)], respectively. Receiver operator curves showed an area under the curve equal to 0.61 [SE = 0.07; 95 % CI (0.48; 0.75)] for the Somatization subscale of the 4DSQ. CONCLUSION: The 4DSQ Somatization subscale is a questionnaire of moderate sensitivity and specificity.
PURPOSE: Somatoform disorders (physical symptoms without medical explanation that cause dysfunction) are prevalent in the occupational health (OH) care setting and are associated with functional impairment and absenteeism. Availability of psychometric instruments aimed at assessing somatoform disorders is limited. In the OH setting, so far only the Patient-Health-Questionnaire 15 has been validated as screener for somatoform disorder, and has been shown to have moderate validity. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is frequently used in the OH setting but the Somatization subscale is not validated yet. The aim of this study is to validate the 4DSQ Somatization subscale as screener for DSM-IV somatoform disorder in the OH setting by using the MINI interview as gold standard. METHODS: Employees absent from work due to physical symptoms, for a period longer than 6 weeks and shorter than 2 years, were asked to participate in this study. They filled out the 4DSQ and underwent a MINI interview by telephone for DSM-IV classification. Specificity and sensitivity scores were calculated for all possible cut-off scores and a receiver operator curve was computed for the Somatization subscale. 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) were calculated for sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: The Somatization subscale of the 4DSQ has an optimal cut point of 9, with specificity and sensitivity equal to 64.3 % [95 % CI (53.6; 73.7 %)] and 60.9 % [95 % CI (40.8; 77.8 %)], respectively. Receiver operator curves showed an area under the curve equal to 0.61 [SE = 0.07; 95 % CI (0.48; 0.75)] for the Somatization subscale of the 4DSQ. CONCLUSION: The 4DSQ Somatization subscale is a questionnaire of moderate sensitivity and specificity.
Authors: Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Rob Hoedeman; Emile J W Keuter; Jan A Swinkels Journal: J Psychosom Res Date: 2011-12-09 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Rob Hoedeman; Fransina J de Jong; Jolanda Ac Meeuwissen; Hanneke W Drewes; Niels C van der Laan; Herman J Adèr Journal: Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat Date: 2010-09-07 Impact factor: 2.570
Authors: D V Sheehan; Y Lecrubier; K H Sheehan; P Amorim; J Janavs; E Weiller; T Hergueta; R Baker; G C Dunbar Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 1998 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: M C Vlasveld; C M van der Feltz-Cornelis; U Bültmann; A T F Beekman; W van Mechelen; R Hoedeman; J R Anema Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2012-03
Authors: Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis; Jolanda A C Meeuwissen; Fransina J de Jong; Rob Hoedeman; Iman Elfeddali Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2007-02-27 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Anna Exner; Maria Kleinstäuber; Wolfgang Maier; Angela Fuchs; Juliana J Petersen; Ingmar Schäfer; Jochen Gensichen; Steffi G Riedel-Heller; Siegfried Weyerer; Horst Bickel; Hans-Helmut König; Birgitt Wiese; Gerhard Schön; Martin Scherer; Hendrik van den Bussche; Berend Terluin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: V S Arnautov; D V Reyhart; A B Smulevich; N N Yakhno; B Terluin; E K Zakharova; A V Andryushchenko; V A Parfenov; M V Zamergrad; D V Romanov Journal: BMC Res Notes Date: 2015-12-12
Authors: Madelon den Boeft; Jos W R Twisk; Berend Terluin; Brenda W J H Penninx; Harm W J van Marwijk; Mattijs E Numans; Johannes C van der Wouden; Henriette E van der Horst Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2016-03-22 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Berend Terluin; Niels Smits; Evelien P M Brouwers; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2016-09-15 Impact factor: 3.186