Alina Surís1, Nicholas Holder2, Ryan Holliday2, Matthew Clem3. 1. Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System, United States; University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States. Electronic address: alina.suris@va.gov. 2. Veterans Affairs North Texas Health Care System, United States; University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States. 3. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report (QIDS-SR16) is one example of a screening tool for depression, which has been utilized extensively following validation in a number of clinical populations. Despite the strengths of the QIDS-SR16, it has not been validated in military veterans, a particularly unique population considering their exposure to trauma and high rate of psychiatric comorbidities. The current report describes a psychometric validation of the QIDS-SR16 in a sample of United States military veterans diagnosed with military-related PTSD. METHODS: Participants (n=240) were administered the QIDS-SR16 and one of two gold-standard semi-structured interviews to establish diagnosis of a current Major Depressive Episode (MDE). The ability to discriminate between individuals with and without a current MDE using the QIDS-SR16 was tested with a stepwise logistic regression. Additionally, an optimal cutoff score for the QIDS-SR16 was established. RESULTS: The QIDS-SR16 was able to reliabily discriminate between individuals with and without a current MDE. The optimal cutoff score of the QIDS-SR16 for a current MDE was 13, with a sensitivity of 77.55% and specificity of 56.25%. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study included underrepresentation of some racial/ethnic groups, the inability to disentangle the potential influence of trauma type and gender on results, and the use of two diagnostic interviews to diagnose current MDE. DISCUSSION: The QIDS-SR16 can be effectively utilized in military veterans with comorbid PTSD. However, the calculated cutoff score for this population was higher than the cutoff score for the general population. This could result from the overlap between PTSD and MDE symptoms. Published by Elsevier B.V.
BACKGROUND: The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Report (QIDS-SR16) is one example of a screening tool for depression, which has been utilized extensively following validation in a number of clinical populations. Despite the strengths of the QIDS-SR16, it has not been validated in military veterans, a particularly unique population considering their exposure to trauma and high rate of psychiatric comorbidities. The current report describes a psychometric validation of the QIDS-SR16 in a sample of United States military veterans diagnosed with military-related PTSD. METHODS:Participants (n=240) were administered the QIDS-SR16 and one of two gold-standard semi-structured interviews to establish diagnosis of a current Major Depressive Episode (MDE). The ability to discriminate between individuals with and without a current MDE using the QIDS-SR16 was tested with a stepwise logistic regression. Additionally, an optimal cutoff score for the QIDS-SR16 was established. RESULTS: The QIDS-SR16 was able to reliabily discriminate between individuals with and without a current MDE. The optimal cutoff score of the QIDS-SR16 for a current MDE was 13, with a sensitivity of 77.55% and specificity of 56.25%. LIMITATIONS: Limitations of this study included underrepresentation of some racial/ethnic groups, the inability to disentangle the potential influence of trauma type and gender on results, and the use of two diagnostic interviews to diagnose current MDE. DISCUSSION: The QIDS-SR16 can be effectively utilized in military veterans with comorbid PTSD. However, the calculated cutoff score for this population was higher than the cutoff score for the general population. This could result from the overlap between PTSD and MDE symptoms. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Authors: Philip Cheng; David A Kalmbach; Gabriel Tallent; Christine Lm Joseph; Colin A Espie; Christopher L Drake Journal: Sleep Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Philip Cheng; David A Kalmbach; Hsing-Fang Hsieh; Andrea Cuamatzi Castelan; Chaewon Sagong; Christopher L Drake Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 10.592
Authors: Randi N Smith; Mark J Seamon; Vinayak Kumar; Andrew Robinson; Justine Shults; Patrick M Reilly; Therese S Richmond Journal: Injury Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: Darlene R King; Damilola C Salako; Samia Kate Arthur-Bentil; Arielle E Rubin; Jay B Italiya; Jenny S Tan; Dimitri G Macris; Hunter K Neely; Jayme M Palka; Justin L Grodin; Kaylee Davis-Bordovsky; Matthew Faubion; Carol S North; E Sherwood Brown Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 4.839