Adrian A Chrobak1, Marcin Siwek2, Dominika Dudek3, Janusz K Rybakowski4. 1. Department of Psychiatry, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland. 2. Department of Affective Disorders, Chair of Psychiatry, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland. 3. Department of Adult Psychiatry, Chair of Psychiatry, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland. 4. Department of Adult Psychiatry, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznań, Poland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Fried () quantified the overlap of items among seven widely used depression rating scales. The analysis revealed substantial heterogeneity of the depressive syndromes and a low overlap among the scales. To our best knowledge, there are no studies evaluating the content overlap of (hypo)mania scales. The goal of our study, therefore, is to quantify the overlap of items among seven widely used (hypo)manic scales, implementing the methodology developed by Fried (). METHODS: Seven commonly used (hypo)manic scales underwent content analysis. Symptom overlap was evaluated with the use of the Jaccard index (0 = no overlap, 1 = full overlap). In case of every scale, rates of idiosyncratic symptoms and rates of specific versus compound symptoms were calculated. RESULTS: The seven scales gathered 64 hypo(manic) symptoms. The mean overlap among all of the instruments was low (0.35), the mean overlap of each scale with all others ranged from 0.29 to 0.48, and the overlap among individual scales ranged from 0.20 to 0.65. Thirty-six percent of symptoms appeared only on one scale. Only 6% of the symptoms appeared on all of the instruments. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that using (hypo)manic scales as interchangeable measurements may be problematic.
OBJECTIVES: Fried () quantified the overlap of items among seven widely used depression rating scales. The analysis revealed substantial heterogeneity of the depressive syndromes and a low overlap among the scales. To our best knowledge, there are no studies evaluating the content overlap of (hypo)mania scales. The goal of our study, therefore, is to quantify the overlap of items among seven widely used (hypo)manic scales, implementing the methodology developed by Fried (). METHODS: Seven commonly used (hypo)manic scales underwent content analysis. Symptom overlap was evaluated with the use of the Jaccard index (0 = no overlap, 1 = full overlap). In case of every scale, rates of idiosyncratic symptoms and rates of specific versus compound symptoms were calculated. RESULTS: The seven scales gathered 64 hypo(manic) symptoms. The mean overlap among all of the instruments was low (0.35), the mean overlap of each scale with all others ranged from 0.29 to 0.48, and the overlap among individual scales ranged from 0.20 to 0.65. Thirty-six percent of symptoms appeared only on one scale. Only 6% of the symptoms appeared on all of the instruments. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that using (hypo)manic scales as interchangeable measurements may be problematic.
Authors: Eduard Vieta; Michael Berk; Thomas G Schulze; André F Carvalho; Trisha Suppes; Joseph R Calabrese; Keming Gao; Kamilla W Miskowiak; Iria Grande Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Adrian A Chrobak; Marcin Siwek; Dominika Dudek; Janusz K Rybakowski Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Dominika Dudek; Marcin Siwek; Rafał Jaeschke; Katarzyna Drozdowicz; Krzysztof Styczeń; Aleksandra Arciszewska; Adrian A Chrobak; Janusz K Rybakowski Journal: Acta Neuropsychiatr Date: 2015-07-20 Impact factor: 3.403
Authors: Anna Klimkiewicz; Jakub Klimkiewicz; Andrzej Jakubczyk; Ilona Kieres-Salomoński; Marcin Wojnar Journal: Psychiatr Pol Date: 2015 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.657
Authors: Adrian A Chrobak; Marcin Siwek; Dominika Dudek; Janusz K Rybakowski Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 4.035