Andrea K Graham1, Alexa Minc2, Erin Staab2, David G Beiser3, Robert D Gibbons4, Neda Laiteerapong5. 1. Department of Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Department of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Department of Medicine, Section of Emergency Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Departments of Medicine, Public Health Sciences, Psychiatry, and Comparative Human Development, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Department of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois nlaiteer@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for depression in the general adult population. Although screening questionnaires for depression and anxiety exist in primary care settings, electronic health tools such as computerized adaptive tests based on item response theory can advance screening practices. This study evaluated the validity of the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH) for screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) and assessing MDD and anxiety severity among adult primary care patients. METHODS: We approached 402 English-speaking adults for participation from a primary care clinic, of whom 271 adults (71% female, 65% black) participated. Participants completed modules from the CAT-MH (Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for MDD, CAT-Depression Inventory, CAT-Anxiety Inventory); brief paper questionnaires (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9], 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2], Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale [GAD-7]); and a reference-standard interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) Diagnoses. RESULTS: On the basis of the interview, 31 participants met criteria for MDD and 29 met criteria for GAD. The diagnostic accuracy of the Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for MDD (area under curve [AUC] = 0.85) was similar to that of the PHQ-9 (AUC = 0.84) and higher than that of the PHQ-2 (AUC = 0.76) for MDD screening. Using the interview as the reference standard, the accuracy of the CAT-Anxiety Inventory (AUC = 0.93) was similar to that of the GAD-7 (AUC = 0.97) for assessing anxiety severity. The patient-preferred screening method was assessment via tablet/computer with audio. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized adaptive testing could be a valid and efficient patient-centered screening strategy for depression and anxiety screening in primary care settings.
PURPOSE: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for depression in the general adult population. Although screening questionnaires for depression and anxiety exist in primary care settings, electronic health tools such as computerized adaptive tests based on item response theory can advance screening practices. This study evaluated the validity of the Computerized Adaptive Test for Mental Health (CAT-MH) for screening for major depressive disorder (MDD) and assessing MDD and anxiety severity among adult primary care patients. METHODS: We approached 402 English-speaking adults for participation from a primary care clinic, of whom 271 adults (71% female, 65% black) participated. Participants completed modules from the CAT-MH (Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for MDD, CAT-Depression Inventory, CAT-Anxiety Inventory); brief paper questionnaires (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9], 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2], Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item Scale [GAD-7]); and a reference-standard interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) Diagnoses. RESULTS: On the basis of the interview, 31 participants met criteria for MDD and 29 met criteria for GAD. The diagnostic accuracy of the Computerized Adaptive Diagnostic Test for MDD (area under curve [AUC] = 0.85) was similar to that of the PHQ-9 (AUC = 0.84) and higher than that of the PHQ-2 (AUC = 0.76) for MDD screening. Using the interview as the reference standard, the accuracy of the CAT-Anxiety Inventory (AUC = 0.93) was similar to that of the GAD-7 (AUC = 0.97) for assessing anxiety severity. The patient-preferred screening method was assessment via tablet/computer with audio. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized adaptive testing could be a valid and efficient patient-centered screening strategy for depression and anxiety screening in primary care settings.
Authors: Roxanne E Jensen; Nan E Rothrock; Esi M DeWitt; Brennan Spiegel; Carole A Tucker; Heidi M Crane; Christopher B Forrest; Donald L Patrick; Rob Fredericksen; Lisa M Shulman; David Cella; Paul K Crane Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Robert D Gibbons; David Kupfer; Ellen Frank; Tara Moore; David G Beiser; Edwin D Boudreaux Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2017 Nov/Dec Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Lynne I Wagner; Julian Schink; Michael Bass; Shalini Patel; Maria Varela Diaz; Nan Rothrock; Timothy Pearman; Richard Gershon; Frank J Penedo; Steven Rosen; David Cella Journal: Cancer Date: 2014-11-06 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Paul A Pilkonis; Lan Yu; Nathan E Dodds; Kelly L Johnston; Catherine C Maihoefer; Suzanne M Lawrence Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2014-05-29 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Janine Becker; Herbert Fliege; Rüya-Daniela Kocalevent; Jakob B Bjorner; Matthias Rose; Otto B Walter; Burghard F Klapp Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2008 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Otto B Walter; Janine Becker; Jakob B Bjorner; Herbert Fliege; Burghard F Klapp; Matthias Rose Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2007-03-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David G Beiser; Charlotte E Ward; Milkie Vu; Neda Laiteerapong; Robert D Gibbons Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2019-04-07 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Robert D Gibbons; David J Kupfer; Ellen Frank; Benjamin B Lahey; Brandie A George-Milford; Candice L Biernesser; Giovanna Porta; Tara L Moore; Jong Bae Kim; David A Brent Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2019-08-26 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Mai Pho; Farah Erzouki; Basmattee Boodram; Antonio D Jimenez; Juliet Pineros; Valery Shuman; Emily Jane Claypool; Alida M Bouris; Nicole Gastala; Jessica Reichert; Marianne Kelly; Elizabeth Salisbury-Afshar; Matthew W Epperson; Robert D Gibbons; John A Schneider; Harold A Pollack Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2021-03-11
Authors: Nayra A Martin-Key; Benedetta Spadaro; Erin Funnell; Eleanor Jane Barker; Thea Sofie Schei; Jakub Tomasik; Sabine Bahn Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2022-03-30
Authors: Peter A Wyman; Anthony R Pisani; C Hendricks Brown; Bryan Yates; Lacy Morgan-DeVelder; Karen Schmeelk-Cone; Robert D Gibbons; Eric D Caine; Mariya Petrova; Tracy Neal-Walden; David J Linkh; Alicia Matteson; Jordan Simonson; Steven E Pflanz Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-10-01