超越频率:评估南巴西抑郁和焦虑症状的背景、持续时间、能力和困扰的有效性。

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-27 DOI:10.1037/pas0001323
Reza de Souza Brümmer, Karolin Rose Krause, Giovanni Abrahão Salum, Marcelo Pio de Almeida Fleck, Ighor Miron Porto, João Villanova do Amaral, João Pedro Gonçalves Pacheco, Bettina Moltrecht, Eoin McElroy, Mauricio Scopel Hoffmann
{"title":"超越频率:评估南巴西抑郁和焦虑症状的背景、持续时间、能力和困扰的有效性。","authors":"Reza de Souza Brümmer, Karolin Rose Krause, Giovanni Abrahão Salum, Marcelo Pio de Almeida Fleck, Ighor Miron Porto, João Villanova do Amaral, João Pedro Gonçalves Pacheco, Bettina Moltrecht, Eoin McElroy, Mauricio Scopel Hoffmann","doi":"10.1037/pas0001323","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Assessment tools for depression and anxiety usually inquire about the frequency of symptoms. However, evidence suggests that different question framings might trigger different responses. Our aim is to test if asking about symptom's context, ability, duration, and botherment adds validity to Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disorder-7, and Patient-Related Outcome Measurement Information Systems depression and anxiety. Participants came from two cross-sectional convenience-sampled surveys (<i>N</i> = 1,871) of adults (66% females, aged 33.4 ± 13.2), weighted to approximate with the state-level population. We examined measurement invariance across the different question frames, estimated whether framing affected mean scores, and tested their independent validity using covariate-adjusted and sample-weighted structural equation models. Validity was tested using tools assessing general disability, alcohol use, loneliness, well-being, grit, and frequency-based questions from depression and anxiety questionnaires. A bifactor model was applied to test the internal consistency of the question frames under the presence of a general factor (i.e., depression or anxiety). Measurement invariance was supported across the different frames. Framing questions as ability (i.e., \"How easily …\") produced a higher score, compared with framing by context (i.e., \"In which daily situations …\"). Construct and criterion validity analysis demonstrate that variance explained using multiple question frames was similar to using only one. We detected a strong overarching factor for each instrument, with little variances left to be explained by the question frame. Therefore, it is unlikely that using different adverbial phrasings can help clinicians and researchers to improve their ability to detect depression or anxiety. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond frequency: Evaluating the validity of assessing the context, duration, ability, and botherment of depression and anxiety symptoms in South Brazil.\",\"authors\":\"Reza de Souza Brümmer, Karolin Rose Krause, Giovanni Abrahão Salum, Marcelo Pio de Almeida Fleck, Ighor Miron Porto, João Villanova do Amaral, João Pedro Gonçalves Pacheco, Bettina Moltrecht, Eoin McElroy, Mauricio Scopel Hoffmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/pas0001323\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Assessment tools for depression and anxiety usually inquire about the frequency of symptoms. However, evidence suggests that different question framings might trigger different responses. Our aim is to test if asking about symptom's context, ability, duration, and botherment adds validity to Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disorder-7, and Patient-Related Outcome Measurement Information Systems depression and anxiety. Participants came from two cross-sectional convenience-sampled surveys (<i>N</i> = 1,871) of adults (66% females, aged 33.4 ± 13.2), weighted to approximate with the state-level population. We examined measurement invariance across the different question frames, estimated whether framing affected mean scores, and tested their independent validity using covariate-adjusted and sample-weighted structural equation models. Validity was tested using tools assessing general disability, alcohol use, loneliness, well-being, grit, and frequency-based questions from depression and anxiety questionnaires. A bifactor model was applied to test the internal consistency of the question frames under the presence of a general factor (i.e., depression or anxiety). Measurement invariance was supported across the different frames. Framing questions as ability (i.e., \\\"How easily …\\\") produced a higher score, compared with framing by context (i.e., \\\"In which daily situations …\\\"). Construct and criterion validity analysis demonstrate that variance explained using multiple question frames was similar to using only one. We detected a strong overarching factor for each instrument, with little variances left to be explained by the question frame. Therefore, it is unlikely that using different adverbial phrasings can help clinicians and researchers to improve their ability to detect depression or anxiety. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological Assessment\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001323\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001323","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

抑郁和焦虑的评估工具通常会询问症状出现的频率。然而,有证据表明,不同的问题框架可能会引发不同的反应。我们的目的是测试询问症状的背景、能力、持续时间和困扰是否会增加患者健康问卷-9、一般焦虑症-7 和患者相关结果测量信息系统抑郁症和焦虑症的有效性。参与者来自两次横截面方便抽样调查(N = 1,871),调查对象均为成年人(66% 为女性,年龄为 33.4 ± 13.2),加权后与州一级人口相近。我们检验了不同问题框架的测量不变性,估计了框架是否会影响平均得分,并使用协变量调整和样本加权结构方程模型检验了它们的独立有效性。使用评估一般残疾、饮酒、孤独感、幸福感、勇气的工具以及抑郁和焦虑问卷中基于频率的问题对有效性进行了测试。双因素模型用于测试问题框架在一般因素(即抑郁或焦虑)存在的情况下的内部一致性。结果表明,不同的问题框架都具有测量不变性。以能力为问题框架(即 "如何轻松地......")与以情境为问题框架(即 "在哪些日常情境中......")相比,得分更高。结构效度和标准效度分析表明,使用多个问题框架所解释的方差与仅使用一个问题框架所解释的方差相似。我们在每个工具中都发现了一个强大的总体因子,问题框架所能解释的方差很小。因此,使用不同的副词措辞不太可能帮助临床医生和研究人员提高检测抑郁或焦虑的能力。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2024 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Beyond frequency: Evaluating the validity of assessing the context, duration, ability, and botherment of depression and anxiety symptoms in South Brazil.

Assessment tools for depression and anxiety usually inquire about the frequency of symptoms. However, evidence suggests that different question framings might trigger different responses. Our aim is to test if asking about symptom's context, ability, duration, and botherment adds validity to Patient Health Questionnaire-9, General Anxiety Disorder-7, and Patient-Related Outcome Measurement Information Systems depression and anxiety. Participants came from two cross-sectional convenience-sampled surveys (N = 1,871) of adults (66% females, aged 33.4 ± 13.2), weighted to approximate with the state-level population. We examined measurement invariance across the different question frames, estimated whether framing affected mean scores, and tested their independent validity using covariate-adjusted and sample-weighted structural equation models. Validity was tested using tools assessing general disability, alcohol use, loneliness, well-being, grit, and frequency-based questions from depression and anxiety questionnaires. A bifactor model was applied to test the internal consistency of the question frames under the presence of a general factor (i.e., depression or anxiety). Measurement invariance was supported across the different frames. Framing questions as ability (i.e., "How easily …") produced a higher score, compared with framing by context (i.e., "In which daily situations …"). Construct and criterion validity analysis demonstrate that variance explained using multiple question frames was similar to using only one. We detected a strong overarching factor for each instrument, with little variances left to be explained by the question frame. Therefore, it is unlikely that using different adverbial phrasings can help clinicians and researchers to improve their ability to detect depression or anxiety. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
期刊介绍: Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews
×
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