{"title":"Are there subgroup differences in the accuracy of ‘screening’ questions for mood and anxiety disorder diagnostic interviews?","authors":"Matthew Sunderland, Tim Slade","doi":"10.1002/mpr.70008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To examine the impact of potential measurement bias (i.e., differential item functioning [DIF]) across sex, age, employment, location, and substance use disorders on the screening properties of epidemiological surveys that utilise screening questions when estimating prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Data comprised of 15,893 respondents who completed the 2020–2022 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Questions from the screening module of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 were analysed using confirmatory factor analysis and DIF across subgroups of interest. Sensitivity, specificity, and classification rate were derived and compared across models that did and did not adjust for significant levels of DIF.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Sources of DIF were identified across the items was due to age and sex at birth with relatively fewer items displaying DIF across employment, location, and substance use disorders. In terms of screening, the absolute differences in sensitivity and specificity between the DIF-free and DIF models ranged from 0.001 to 0.091.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The current study found some evidence of DIF in the screening questions used to evaluate mental health disorder prevalence. However, the overall influence of DIF on screening into at least one mood and anxiety disorder module was found to be minimal.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50310,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","volume":"33 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11541601/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.70008","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
Objective
To examine the impact of potential measurement bias (i.e., differential item functioning [DIF]) across sex, age, employment, location, and substance use disorders on the screening properties of epidemiological surveys that utilise screening questions when estimating prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders.
Methods
Data comprised of 15,893 respondents who completed the 2020–2022 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Questions from the screening module of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 were analysed using confirmatory factor analysis and DIF across subgroups of interest. Sensitivity, specificity, and classification rate were derived and compared across models that did and did not adjust for significant levels of DIF.
Results
Sources of DIF were identified across the items was due to age and sex at birth with relatively fewer items displaying DIF across employment, location, and substance use disorders. In terms of screening, the absolute differences in sensitivity and specificity between the DIF-free and DIF models ranged from 0.001 to 0.091.
Conclusions
The current study found some evidence of DIF in the screening questions used to evaluate mental health disorder prevalence. However, the overall influence of DIF on screening into at least one mood and anxiety disorder module was found to be minimal.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (MPR) publishes high-standard original research of a technical, methodological, experimental and clinical nature, contributing to the theory, methodology, practice and evaluation of mental and behavioural disorders. The journal targets in particular detailed methodological and design papers from major national and international multicentre studies. There is a close working relationship with the US National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Diagnostic Instruments Committees, as well as several other European and international organisations.
MPR aims to publish rapidly articles of highest methodological quality in such areas as epidemiology, biostatistics, generics, psychopharmacology, psychology and the neurosciences. Articles informing about innovative and critical methodological, statistical and clinical issues, including nosology, can be submitted as regular papers and brief reports. Reviews are only occasionally accepted.
MPR seeks to monitor, discuss, influence and improve the standards of mental health and behavioral neuroscience research by providing a platform for rapid publication of outstanding contributions. As a quarterly journal MPR is a major source of information and ideas and is an important medium for students, clinicians and researchers in psychiatry, clinical psychology, epidemiology and the allied disciplines in the mental health field.