Assessing Diagnostic Precision: Adaptations of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-5/10/25) Among Tertiary-Level Students in Norway.

Q2 Psychology
Clinical Psychology in Europe Pub Date : 2024-12-20 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.32872/cpe.13275
Børge Sivertsen, Jens C Skogen, Anne Reneflot, Marit Knapstad, Otto Robert Frans Smith, Leif Edvard Aarø, Benedicte Kirkøen, Bengt Oscar Lagerstrøm, Ann Kristin Skrindo Knudsen
{"title":"Assessing Diagnostic Precision: Adaptations of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-5/10/25) Among Tertiary-Level Students in Norway.","authors":"Børge Sivertsen, Jens C Skogen, Anne Reneflot, Marit Knapstad, Otto Robert Frans Smith, Leif Edvard Aarø, Benedicte Kirkøen, Bengt Oscar Lagerstrøm, Ann Kristin Skrindo Knudsen","doi":"10.32872/cpe.13275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Universities worldwide are witnessing a surge in mental health problems among students, particularly in anxiety and depression. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) is a popular screening tool, but its reliability in identifying mental disorders remains debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the criterion validity of the HSCL-25, HSCL-10, and HSCL-5 using 30-day prevalence of major depressive episode (MDE) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) from a self-administered electronic version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, fifth version (CIDI 5.0), as the benchmark.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Data stem from a national survey targeting students in higher education in Norway. In a 2023 follow-up study on mental disorders, 5,568 participants completed both the HSCL-25 and the CIDI. Sex-specific optimal thresholds for all HSCL versions in relation to MDE and GAD (from CIDI) were determined using the Youden Index maximization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The optimal cut-off values for detecting MDE or GAD with the HSCL-25 were 1.96 for males and 2.20 for females, displaying a good balance between sensitivity and specificity. Similar high and balanced sensitivity and specificity patterns were found for both the HSCL-10 and HSCL-5. However, all HSCL versions overestimated prevalence rates compared to the self-administered CIDI.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>All three HSCL versions showed high criterion validity. The data indicate that HSCL may be better as a screening tool than for precise estimation of MDE and GAD prevalence. For improved diagnostic accuracy, future HSCL versions should incorporate functional impairment assessment. This update would bring the HSCL into closer alignment with clinical diagnostic standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":34029,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology in Europe","volume":"6 4","pages":"e13275"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11960570/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology in Europe","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32872/cpe.13275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Psychology","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Universities worldwide are witnessing a surge in mental health problems among students, particularly in anxiety and depression. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) is a popular screening tool, but its reliability in identifying mental disorders remains debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the criterion validity of the HSCL-25, HSCL-10, and HSCL-5 using 30-day prevalence of major depressive episode (MDE) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) from a self-administered electronic version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, fifth version (CIDI 5.0), as the benchmark.

Method: Data stem from a national survey targeting students in higher education in Norway. In a 2023 follow-up study on mental disorders, 5,568 participants completed both the HSCL-25 and the CIDI. Sex-specific optimal thresholds for all HSCL versions in relation to MDE and GAD (from CIDI) were determined using the Youden Index maximization.

Results: The optimal cut-off values for detecting MDE or GAD with the HSCL-25 were 1.96 for males and 2.20 for females, displaying a good balance between sensitivity and specificity. Similar high and balanced sensitivity and specificity patterns were found for both the HSCL-10 and HSCL-5. However, all HSCL versions overestimated prevalence rates compared to the self-administered CIDI.

Conclusions: All three HSCL versions showed high criterion validity. The data indicate that HSCL may be better as a screening tool than for precise estimation of MDE and GAD prevalence. For improved diagnostic accuracy, future HSCL versions should incorporate functional impairment assessment. This update would bring the HSCL into closer alignment with clinical diagnostic standards.

评估诊断精度:霍普金斯症状检查表(hsl -5/10/25)在挪威高等教育学生中的适应性
背景:世界各地的大学都见证了学生心理健康问题的激增,尤其是焦虑和抑郁。霍普金斯症状检查表(HSCL)是一种流行的筛查工具,但其在识别精神障碍方面的可靠性仍存在争议。本研究的目的是评估hhsl -25、hhsl -10和hhsl -5的标准效度,以自我给药的国际综合诊断访谈第五版(CIDI 5.0)的30天重度抑郁发作(MDE)和广泛性焦虑障碍(GAD)的患病率为基准。方法:数据来源于一项针对挪威高等教育学生的全国性调查。在一项关于精神障碍的2023年随访研究中,5568名参与者完成了hsl -25和CIDI。所有HSCL版本与MDE和GAD(来自CIDI)相关的性别特异性最佳阈值使用约登指数最大化确定。结果:HSCL-25检测MDE或GAD的最佳临界值男性为1.96,女性为2.20,在敏感性和特异性之间取得了很好的平衡。在HSCL-10和HSCL-5中发现了相似的高且平衡的敏感性和特异性模式。然而,与自我管理的CIDI相比,所有HSCL版本都高估了患病率。结论:三种HSCL版本均具有较高的标准效度。数据表明,HSCL作为一种筛选工具可能比精确估计MDE和GAD患病率更好。为了提高诊断的准确性,未来的HSCL版本应该纳入功能损伤评估。这一更新将使HSCL更接近临床诊断标准。
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
Clinical Psychology in Europe
Clinical Psychology in Europe Psychology-Clinical Psychology
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
26
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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