Dataset Information

Frequency vs. intensity: which should be used as anchors for self-report instruments?

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of the present study was to investigate the usability of verbal rating scale anchors in patients suffering from a depressive episode and whether differences between frequency or intensity scales could be determined. Frequency and intensity terms were evaluated concerning their interindividual congruency, intraindividual stability across time, and distinguishability of adjacent terms.

Methods

In a longitudinal design, 44 patients (age M=39.1, SD=15.2, 68.2% female) with a depressive disorder filled out several established questionnaires (e.g. BDI or SCL-90) and questionnaires containing frequency and intensity terms which should be indicated by the percentage of time or intensity that is reflected by each term at two different measuring times within one week. Data analysis contained t-tests for paired samples and effect sizes d according to Cohen.

Results

Intensity terms showed weaker intraindividual stability across time as compared to frequency terms. Participants were able to reliably distinguish four frequency and intensity terms at both measuring times. Overall congruency between patients was larger for intensity terms in comparison to frequency terms.

Conclusions

The present results indicate that both frequency and intensity terms can be applied as verbal anchors for clinical self-report scales. However, if longitudinal assessment is intended, our results indicate that frequency terms should be used as they showed slightly greater stability across time. Generally, the present study suggests that no more than four different verbal anchors should be used together in rating scales as especially older patients and those with low lexical experience would not be able to reasonably differentiate more than these.

SUBMITTER: Krabbe J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3514164 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Frequency vs. intensity: which should be used as anchors for self-report instruments?

Krabbe Julia J Forkmann Thomas T

Health and quality of life outcomes 20120906

<h4>Background</h4>The aim of the present study was to investigate the usability of verbal rating scale anchors in patients suffering from a depressive episode and whether differences between frequency or intensity scales could be determined. Frequency and intensity terms were evaluated concerning their interindividual congruency, intraindividual stability across time, and distinguishability of adjacent terms.<h4>Methods</h4>In a longitudinal design, 44 patients (age M=39.1, SD=15.2, 68.2% femal ...[more]

PMID: 22950609

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and aimsThe accuracy of current screening instruments for identification of substance use in pregnancy is unclear, particularly given methodological shortcomings in existing research. This diagnostic accuracy study compared five existing instruments for ability to identify illicit drug, opioid and alcohol use, under privacy expectations consistent with applied practice and using a gold standard incorporating toxicological analysis.DesignProspective cross-sectional screening accuracy study.SettingThree sites encompassing four prenatal care clinics in the United States.ParticipantsConvenience sample of 1220 racially, ethnically and socio-economically diverse pregnant women aged 18 years and over.MeasurementsIn Phase I, participants completed the five screening instruments in counterbalanced order. Instruments included the Substance Use Risk Profile-Pregnancy (SURP-P), CRAFFT (acronym for five-item screener with items related to car, relax, alone, forget, friends and trouble), 5Ps (parents, peers, partner, pregnancy, past), Wayne Indirect Drug Use Screener (WIDUS) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Quick Screen. In Phase II, participants provided a urine sample and completed a calendar recall-based interview regarding substance use. These screeners were tested, using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and accuracy statistics, against a reference standard consisting of substance use in three classes (illicit drugs, opioids and alcohol), considered positive if use was evident via 30-day calendar recall or urine analysis.FindingsThree hundred and fifteen of 1220 participants (26.3%) met reference standard criteria for positivity. The single-item screening questions from the NIDA Quick Screen showed high specificity (0.99) for all substances, but very poor sensitivity (0.10-0.27). The 5Ps showed high sensitivity (0.80-0.88) but low specificity (0.35-0.37). The CRAFFT, SURP-P and 5Ps had the highest area under the curve (AUC) for alcohol (0.67, 0.66 and 0.62, respectively), and the WIDUS had the highest AUC for illicit drugs and opioids (0.70 and 0.69, respectively). Performance of all instruments varied significantly with race, site and economic status.ConclusionsOf five screening instruments for substance use in pregnancy tested (Substance Use Risk Profile-Pregnancy (SURP-P), CRAFFT, 5Ps, Wayne Indirect Drug Use Screener (WIDUS) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (Quick Screen), none showed both high sensitivity and high specificity, and area under the curve was low for nearly all measures.

Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate the prevalence of depression in cancer patients assessed by diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments, and to study differences in prevalence between type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase.MethodsA literature search was conducted in four databases to select studies on the prevalence of depression among adult cancer patients during or after treatment. A total of 211 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled mean prevalence of depression was calculated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.ResultsHospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-depression subscale (HADS-D)???8, HADS-D ?11, Center for Epidemiologic Studies???16, and (semi-)structured diagnostic interviews were used to define depression in 66, 53, 35 and 49 studies, respectively. Respective mean prevalence of depression was 17% (95% CI?=?16-19%), 8% (95% CI?=?7-9%), 24% (95% CI?=?21-26%), and 13% (95% CI?=?11-15%) (p?<?0.001). Prevalence of depression ranged from 3% in patients with lung cancer to 31% in patients with cancer of the digestive tract, on the basis of diagnostic interviews. Prevalence of depression was highest during treatment 14% (95% CI?=?11-17%), measured by diagnostic interviews, and 27% (95% CI?=?25-30%), measured by self-report instruments. In the first year after diagnosis, prevalence of depression measured with diagnostic interviews and self-report instruments were 9% (95% CI?=?7-11%) and 21% (95% CI?=?19-24%), respectively, and they were 8% (95% CI?=?5-12%) and 15% (95% CI?=?13-17%)???1?year after diagnosis.ConclusionsPooled mean prevalence of depression in cancer patients ranged from 8% to 24% and differed by the type of instrument, type of cancer and treatment phase. Future prospective studies should disentangle whether differences in prevalence of depression are caused by differences in the type of instrument, type of cancer or treatment phase. © 2013 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dataset Information

Frequency vs. intensity: which should be used as anchors for self-report instruments?

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Frequency vs. intensity: which should be used as anchors for self-report instruments?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets