Skip to main content

DI‐II.

DIII.

I found four studies to assess a range of measurement properties of the BDI‐II in general population adults, without comorbid conditions. There was weak evidence in support of internal consistency—many studies did not calculate Cronbach's alpha for each subscale separately. However, all studies showed support for the internal consistency of the BDI‐II total score with acceptable alphas above (.7). There was weak evidence in support of test‐retest reliability with one fair study (as it was unclear how missing items were handled), with a high alpha (.89). There was strong evidence for content validity in one methodologically excellent study of the BDI‐II in a non-English speaking Kenyan sample. There was moderate evidence in support of structural validity from the two studies. Both studies showed fair evidence for a single factor solution. Evidence for hypothesis testing was moderate—the BDI‐II showed acceptable correlations with other depression measures (r > .57). There was weak evidence for cross-cultural validity as there were weaknesses in the quality of the translations (only one forward/backwards translation), or failure to pretest the items in a sample for interpretability and cultural relevance. There was moderate evidence for criterion validity. The BDI‐II showed adequate sensitivity (>.7) and specificity (>.8) in determining Major Depressive Episodes with clinician ratings used as the criterion.

 

PHQ‐9. Six studies were found that explored a range of measurement properties of the PHQ‐9 in general population adults. There was moderate evidence in support of internal consistency with adequate Cronbach's alphas (>.7) for the unidimensional measure (confirmed using IRT methods and factor analytic methods). There was moderate evidence in support of test‐retest reliability with correlations >.7. There was moderate evidence for structural validity showing consistent evidence for a one-factor solution (using factor analysis). There was moderate evidence for hypothesis testing; the PHQ‐9 correlated strongly with other measures of similar constructs (e.g., the BDI), and support was found for consistent factor structure across time points and subgroups. There was moderate evidence for criterion validity, with acceptable sensitivity and specificity (>.79) in detecting clinical diagnosis of depressive disorder.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ADVOKATE: A Tool for Assessment of Eyewitness Evidence

ADVOCATE: A Tool for Assessment of Eyewitness Evidence It is a tool designed to assess the eyewitness evidence that how much it is reliable. It requires the user to respond to several statements/questions. Forensic psychologist, police or investigative officer can do it. The mnemonic ADVOKATE stands for: A = amount of time under observation (event and act) D = distance from suspect V = visibility (night-day, lighting) O = obstruction to the view of the witness K = known or seen before when and where (suspect) A = any special reason for remembering the subject T = time-lapse (how long has it been since witness saw suspect) E = error or material discrepancy between the description given first or any subsequent accounts by a witness.  Working with suspects (college.police.uk)

Diagnostic test for catatonia, the lorazepam challenge test

Benzodiazepines are the mainstay of the treatment of catatonia and are also helpful as a diagnostic probe. A positive Lorazepam Challenge Test validates the diagnosis of catatonia. After we examine the patient for signs of catatonia, 1 or 2 mg of lorazepam is administered intravenously. After 5 minutes, the patient is re-examined. If there has been no change, a second dose is given, and the patient is again reassessed (46, 78). A positive response is a marked reduction (e.g., at least 50%) of catatonic signs and symptoms, as measured with a standardized rating scale. Favorable responses usually occur within 10 min (46). If lorazepam is given intramuscularly or per os, the interval for the second dose should be longer: 15′ and 30′, respectively. Many clinicians will share the experience that a “lorazepam test” not only confirms the diagnosis of catatonia but that it also makes the underlying psychopathology apparent “by permitting mute patients to speak” (79). Analogous to the lorazepa

Classification of Depression According to the ICD-10

A first depressive episode, duration at least15 days →depressive episode (F32)  A first depressive episode, severe and rapid onset, duration less than 15 days →still depressive episode (F32) A depressive episode can be mild (2 core symptoms, 2 other symptoms from the list) (32.0) moderate (2 core symptoms, 3 or preferably 4 other symptoms) (32.1) Severe (3 core symptoms, 4 other symptoms) without psychotic symptoms (32.2) (no delusion, hallucination or stupor) Severe with psychotic symptoms (above plus either delusions, hallucinations or stupor) (F32.3) Delusions can be mood-congruent or incongruent (neutral delusions e.g. delusions of reference are considered mood incongruent. None of them count towards schizoaffective disorder unless one of the first-rank)  A mild and moderate depressive episode can be  with somatic syndrome (four or more somatic symptoms, or three very severe somatic symptoms) without somatic syndrome (three or less somatic symptoms, not severe)  A severe depressi