Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T11:51:47.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Test–retest reliability and sensitivity to change of the dimensional anxiety scales for DSM-5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2013

Susanne Knappe ,
Jens Klotsche ,
Franziska Heyde ,
Sarah Hiob ,
Jens Siegert ,
Jürgen Hoyer ,
Anja Strobel ,
Richard T. LeBeau ,
Michelle G. Craske  and
Hans-Ulrich Wittchen
...Show all authors
Susanne Knappe*
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Jens Klotsche
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Franziska Heyde
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Sarah Hiob
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Jens Siegert
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Jürgen Hoyer
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Anja Strobel
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Process-Oriented Assessment, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Richard T. LeBeau
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States
Michelle G. Craske
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, California, United States
Hans-Ulrich Wittchen
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
Katja Beesdo-Baum
Affiliation:
Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany
*
*Address for correspondence: Susanne Knappe, Technische Universität Dresden, Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Chemnitzer Str. 46, 01187 Dresden, Germany. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

This article reports on the test–retest reliability and sensitivity to change of a set of brief dimensional self-rating questionnaires for social anxiety disorder (SAD-D), specific phobia (SP-D), agoraphobia (AG-D), panic disorder (PD-D), and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-D), as well as a general cross-cutting anxiety scale (Cross-D), which were developed to supplement categorical diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5).

Methods

The German versions of the dimensional anxiety scales were administered to 218 students followed up approximately 2 weeks later (Study 1) and 55 outpatients (23 with anxiety diagnoses) followed-up 1 year later (Study 2). Probable diagnostic status in students was determined by the DIA-X/M-CIDI stem screening-questionnaire (SSQ). In the clinical sample, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) diagnoses were assessed at Time 1 using the DIA-X/M-CIDI. At Time 2, the patient-version of the Clinical Global Impression—Improvement scale (CGI-I) was applied to assess change.

Results

Good psychometric properties, including high test–retest reliability, were found for the dimensional scales except for SP-D. In outpatients, improvement at Time 2 was associated with significant decrease in PD-D, GAD-D, and Cross-D scores.

Discussion

Major advantages of the scales include that they are brief, concise, and based on a consistent template to measure the cognitive, physiological, and behavioral symptoms of fear and anxiety. Further replication in larger samples is needed. Given its modest psychometric properties, SP-D needs refinement.

Conclusion

Increasing evidence from diverse samples suggests clinical utility of the dimensional anxiety scales.

Keywords

AnxietyassessmentdiagnosticDSMpsychometric
Type
Original Research
Information
CNS Spectrums , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , June 2014 , pp. 256 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This article was generated as part of the DSM-5 Work Group activities, ©2012 by the American Psychiatric Association.

References

1.American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association; 2013: 5–25.Google Scholar
2.Shear, KM, Bjelland, I, Beesdo, K, Gloster, AT, Wittchen, H-U. Supplementary dimensional assessment in anxiety disorders. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2007; 16(Suppl 1): S52–S64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.LeBeau, RT, Glenn, DE, Hanover, L, etal. A dimensional approach to measuring anxiety for DSM-5. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2012; 21(4): 258–272.Google Scholar
4.Beesdo-Baum, K, Klotsche, J, Knappe, S, etal. Psychometric properties of the dimensional anxiety scales for DSM-5 in an unselected sample of treatment seeking patients. Depress Anxiety. 2012; 29(12): 1014–1024.Google Scholar
5.Möller, E, Majdandzic, M, Craske, MG, Bögels, S. Dimensional assessment of anxiety disorders in parents and children for DSM-5. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. In press.Google Scholar
6.Knappe, S, Klotsche, J, Strobel, A, etal. Dimensional anxiety scales for DSM-5: sensitivity to clinical severity. Eur Psychiatry. 2013; 28(7): 448–456.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Beesdo-Baum, K, Knappe, S. Developmental epidemiology of anxiety disorders. Child Adoles Psychiatr Clin N Am. 2012; 21(3): 457–478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Fava, GA, Ruini, C, Rafanelli, C. Psychometric theory is an obstacle to the progress of clinical research. Psychother Psychosom. 2004; 73: 145–148.Google Scholar
9.Wittchen, HU, Pfister, H. DIA-X-Interviews: Manual für Screening Verfahren und Interview; Interviewheft Längsschnittuntersuchung (DIA-X-Lifetime); Ergänzungsheft (DIA-X-Lifetime); Interviewheft Querschnittsuntersuchung (DIA-X-12 Monate); Ergänzungsheft (DIA-X-12 Monate); PC-Programm zur Durchführung des Interviews (Längs- und Querschnittsuntersuchung); Auswertungsprogramm. Frankfurt: Swets & Zeitlinger; 1997.Google Scholar
10.Derogatis, LR, Melisaratos, N. The Brief Symptom Inventory: an introductory report. Psychol Med. 1983; 13(3): 595–605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Marks, IM, Mathews, AM. Brief standard self-rating for phobic patients. Behav Res Ther. 1979; 17(3): 263–267.Google Scholar
12.Connor, KM, Kobak, KA, Churchill, LE, Katzelnick, D, Davidson, JRT. Mini-SPIN: a brief screening assessment for generalized social anxiety disorder. Depress Anxiety. 2001; 14(2): 137–140.Google Scholar
13.Spitzer, RL, Kroenke, K, Williams, JBW, Lowe, B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder—the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166(10): 1092–1097.Google Scholar
14.Knappe, S, Hoyer, J. Clinical assessment of anxiety disorders. In: Emmelkamp PMG, Ering T, eds. International Handbook of Anxiety Disorders: Theory, Research and Practice. Vol II: Wiley; In press.Google Scholar
15.Pilkonis, PA, Choi, SW, Reise, SP, etal. Item banks for measuring emotional distress from the Patient-Recorded Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): depression, anxiety, and anger. Ann Behav Med. 2011; 41: S145–S145.Google Scholar
16.Cella, D, Riley, W, Stone, A, etal. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010; 63(11): 1179–1194.Google Scholar
17.Bandelow, B. Panic and Agoraphobia Scale (PAS). Seattle, WA: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers; 1999.Google Scholar
18.Wolpe, J, Lang, PJ. A fear survey schedule for use in behavior therapy. Behav Res Ther. 1964; 2: 27–30.Google Scholar
19.Beck, JG, Carmin, CN, Henninger, NJ. The utility of the fear survey schedule—III: an extended replication. J Anxiety Disord. 1998; 12(3): 177–182.Google Scholar
20.Busner, J, Targum, SD. The clinical global impressions scale: applying a research tool in clinical practice. Psychiatry (Edgmont). 2007; 4(7): 28–37.Google Scholar
21.Berk, M, Ng, F, Dodd, S, etal. The validity of the CGI severity and improvement scales as measures of clinical effectiveness suitable for routine clinical use. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008; 14(6): 979–983.Google Scholar
22.Forkmann, T, Scherer, A, Boecker, M, etal. The clinical global impression scale and the influence of patient or staff perspective on outcome. BMC Psychiatry. 2011; 11: 83.Google Scholar
23. Stata Statistical Software: Release 12 [computer program]. College Station, TX: StataCorp; 2011.Google Scholar
24.Muthen, LK, Muthen, BO. Mplus User's Guide. Vol. 6. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen; 1998–2010.Google Scholar
25.Savitz, DA, Olshan, AF. Multiple comparisons and related issues in the interpretation of epidemiologic data. Am J Epidemiol. 1995; 142(9): 904–908.Google Scholar
26.Muthén, B. A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika. 1984; 49(1): 115–132.Google Scholar
27.Hu, L, Bentler, PM. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Methods. 1998; 3(4): 424–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28Meng, XL, Rosenthal, R, Rubin, DB. Comparing correlated correlation-coefficients. Psychol Bull. 1992; 111(1): 172–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Carpenter, J, Bithell, J. Bootstrap confidence intervals: when, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. Stat Med. 2000; 19(9): 1141–1164.Google Scholar
30.Kubinger, KD, Rasch, D, Moder, K. Zur Legende der Voraussetzungen des t-Tests für unabhängige Stichproben. Psychologische Rundschau. 2009; 1(60): 26–27.Google Scholar
31.Regier, D. Merging categorical and dimensional diagnoses of mental disorders. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2012; 21(3): 267–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Balon, R. Measuring anxiety: are we getting what we need? Depress Anxiety. 2005; 22(1): 1–10.Google Scholar
33.McLean, CP, Asnaani, A, Litz, BT, Hofmann, SG. Gender differences in anxiety disorders: prevalence, course of illness, comorbidity and burden of illness. J Psychiatr Res. 2011; 45(8): 1027–1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34.Reed, V, Gander, F, Pfister, H, etal. To what degree does the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) correctly identify DSM-IV disorders? Testing validity issues in a clinical sample. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 1998; 7(3): 142–155.Google Scholar
35.Wittchen, H-U, Lachner, G, Wunderlich, U, Pfister, H. Test-retest reliability of the computerized DSM-IV version of the Munich-Composite International Diagnostic Interview (M-CIDI). Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1998; 33(11): 568–578.Google Scholar
36.Perini, SJ, Slade, T, Andrews, G. Generic effectiveness measures: sensitivity to symptom change in anxiety disorders. J Affect Disord. 2006; 90(2–3): 123–130.Google Scholar