Assessing self-reported prolonged grief disorder with "clinical checks": A proof of principle study.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Mark Shevlin, Philip Hyland, Marylène Cloitre, Chris Brewin, Dmytro Martsenkovskyi, Menachem Ben-Ezra, Kristina Bondjers, Thanos Karatzias, Michael Duffy, Enya Redican
{"title":"Assessing self-reported prolonged grief disorder with \"clinical checks\": A proof of principle study.","authors":"Mark Shevlin, Philip Hyland, Marylène Cloitre, Chris Brewin, Dmytro Martsenkovskyi, Menachem Ben-Ezra, Kristina Bondjers, Thanos Karatzias, Michael Duffy, Enya Redican","doi":"10.1002/jts.23100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Psychological assessment is commonly conducted using either self-report measures or clinical interviews; the former are quick and easy to administer, and the latter are more time-consuming and require training. Self-report measures have been criticized for producing higher estimates of symptom and disorder presence relative to clinical interviews, with the assumption being that self-report measures are prone to Type 1 error. Here, we introduce the use of \"clinical checks\" within an existing self-report measure. These are brief supplementary questions intended to clarify and confirm initial responses, similar to what occurs in a clinical interview. Clinical checks were developed for the items of the International Grief Questionnaire (IGQ), a self-report measure of ICD-11 prolonged grief disorder (PGD). Data were collected as part of a community survey of mental health in Ukraine. Individual symptom endorsements for the IGQ significantly decreased with the use of clinical checks, and the percentage of the sample that met the ICD-11 diagnostic requirements for PGD fell from 13.6% to 10.2%, representing a 24.8% reduction in cases. The value and potential broader application of clinical checks are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":17519,"journal":{"name":"Journal of traumatic stress","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of traumatic stress","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jts.23100","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Psychological assessment is commonly conducted using either self-report measures or clinical interviews; the former are quick and easy to administer, and the latter are more time-consuming and require training. Self-report measures have been criticized for producing higher estimates of symptom and disorder presence relative to clinical interviews, with the assumption being that self-report measures are prone to Type 1 error. Here, we introduce the use of "clinical checks" within an existing self-report measure. These are brief supplementary questions intended to clarify and confirm initial responses, similar to what occurs in a clinical interview. Clinical checks were developed for the items of the International Grief Questionnaire (IGQ), a self-report measure of ICD-11 prolonged grief disorder (PGD). Data were collected as part of a community survey of mental health in Ukraine. Individual symptom endorsements for the IGQ significantly decreased with the use of clinical checks, and the percentage of the sample that met the ICD-11 diagnostic requirements for PGD fell from 13.6% to 10.2%, representing a 24.8% reduction in cases. The value and potential broader application of clinical checks are discussed.

用 "临床检查 "评估自我报告的长期悲伤障碍:原理验证研究
心理评估通常采用自我报告测量法或临床访谈法;前者快速且易于实施,后者则更耗时且需要培训。与临床访谈相比,自我报告测量法对症状和障碍存在的估计值更高,这一点受到了批评,其假设是自我报告测量法容易出现第一类错误。在此,我们介绍在现有的自我报告测量中使用 "临床检查"。这些简短的补充问题旨在澄清和确认最初的回答,与临床访谈中的情况类似。临床检查是针对国际悲伤问卷(IGQ)的项目开发的,IGQ 是对 ICD-11 长时间悲伤障碍(PGD)的自我报告测量。数据收集是乌克兰心理健康社区调查的一部分。使用临床检查后,IGQ 的个人症状认可度明显下降,符合 ICD-11 PGD 诊断要求的样本比例从 13.6% 降至 10.2%,病例减少了 24.8%。本文讨论了临床检查的价值和更广泛应用的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
6.10%
发文量
125
期刊介绍: Journal of Traumatic Stress (JTS) is published for the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress , the official publication for the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, is an interdisciplinary forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on biopsychosocial aspects of trauma. Papers focus on theoretical formulations, research, treatment, prevention education/training, and legal and policy concerns. Journal of Traumatic Stress serves as a primary reference for professionals who study and treat people exposed to highly stressful and traumatic events (directly or through their occupational roles), such as war, disaster, accident, violence or abuse (criminal or familial), hostage-taking, or life-threatening illness. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, review papers, commentaries, and, from time to time, special issues devoted to a single topic.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信