Philip J Batterham1, Matthew Sunderland2, Natacha Carragher2, Alison L Calear3, Andrew J Mackinnon4, Tim Slade2. 1. National Institute for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, 63 Eggleston Road, Acton ACT 2601, Canberra, Australia. Electronic address: philip.batterham@anu.edu.au. 2. NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Mental Health and Substance Use, University of New South Wales, Sydney NSW 2052, Australia. 3. National Institute for Mental Health Research, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, 63 Eggleston Road, Acton ACT 2601, Canberra, Australia. 4. Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, Centre for Youth Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Locked Bag 10, Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The K6 and K10 are well-validated screening measures for psychological distress and are widely used. However, the accuracy of these scales in identifying common mental disorders may be suboptimal. This study aimed to develop a brief scale of psychological distress--the Distress Questionnaire-5 (DQ5)--and validate its diagnostic accuracy in identifying common mental disorders, relative to the K6 and K10. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The DQ5 was developed from a pool of 347 items reflecting a range of mental health symptoms. Validation of the DQ5 was conducted concurrently, on the basis of DSM-5 criteria for seven common mental disorders. A population-based sample of Australian adults (n = 3,175) was recruited online, with data weighted to reflect population estimates of disorder prevalence, age, and gender. RESULTS: At specified cut points, the DQ5 was significantly more accurate in identifying individuals who met criteria for each of the disorders examined relative to the K6, with the exception of major depression where there was no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity. CONCLUSION: The DQ5 is a promising tool for identifying psychological distress in the community, with potential for use in a range of clinical settings.
OBJECTIVE: The K6 and K10 are well-validated screening measures for psychological distress and are widely used. However, the accuracy of these scales in identifying common mental disorders may be suboptimal. This study aimed to develop a brief scale of psychological distress--the Distress Questionnaire-5 (DQ5)--and validate its diagnostic accuracy in identifying common mental disorders, relative to the K6 and K10. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The DQ5 was developed from a pool of 347 items reflecting a range of mental health symptoms. Validation of the DQ5 was conducted concurrently, on the basis of DSM-5 criteria for seven common mental disorders. A population-based sample of Australian adults (n = 3,175) was recruited online, with data weighted to reflect population estimates of disorder prevalence, age, and gender. RESULTS: At specified cut points, the DQ5 was significantly more accurate in identifying individuals who met criteria for each of the disorders examined relative to the K6, with the exception of major depression where there was no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity. CONCLUSION: The DQ5 is a promising tool for identifying psychological distress in the community, with potential for use in a range of clinical settings.
Authors: Mohammad H Afzali; Matthew Sunderland; Philip J Batterham; Natacha Carragher; Alison Calear; Tim Slade Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2016-12-24 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: Matthew Sunderland; Philip J Batterham; Alison L Calear; Natacha Carragher Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Alison L Calear; Michelle Banfield; Philip J Batterham; Alyssa R Morse; Owen Forbes; Bradley Carron-Arthur; Martin Fisk Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2017-10-23 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Alison L Calear; Jacqueline L Brewer; Philip J Batterham; Andrew Mackinnon; Peter A Wyman; Mark LoMurray; Fiona Shand; Dominique Kazan; Helen Christensen Journal: Trials Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 2.279