TY - JOUR
T1 - A comparison of self-reports of distress and affective disorder diagnoses in rheumatoid arthritis
T2 - A receiver operator characteristic analysis
AU - McQuillan, Julia
AU - Fifield, Judith
AU - Sheehan, T. Joseph
AU - Reisine, Susan
AU - Tennen, Howard
AU - Hesselbrock, Victor
AU - Rothfield, Naomi
PY - 2003/6/15
Y1 - 2003/6/15
N2 - Objective. To compare 3 commonly used psychiatric symptom checklists (the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale [CES-D], the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, and the Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales [EMAS]) to determine their sensitivity, specificity, and ability to discriminate between a disorder (Major Depression [MD], Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD]), and no disorder. To compare the checklists for their ability to discriminate between type of disorder (MD and GAD). To evaluate the discriminant ability of the subscales, particularly positive affect; whether the somatic items in the CES-D artificially inflate affective scores; and the optimal cut off score for the CES-D. Methods. We compared the 3 scales to diagnostic criterion of MD, GAD, and comorbid disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) and logistic regression analyses. The sample consisted of a national panel of 415 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Results. Each of the scales had high sensitivity and specificity (areas under the curve: CES-D = 0.92, negative affect = 0.88, positive affect and EMAS = 0.82). The CES-D, however, demonstrated better sensitivity and specificity than the positive affect and the EMAS, but not the negative affect scale. Conclusion. All 3 self-reports have high combined sensitivity and specificity as measures of affective disorders among RA patients.
AB - Objective. To compare 3 commonly used psychiatric symptom checklists (the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale [CES-D], the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, and the Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales [EMAS]) to determine their sensitivity, specificity, and ability to discriminate between a disorder (Major Depression [MD], Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD]), and no disorder. To compare the checklists for their ability to discriminate between type of disorder (MD and GAD). To evaluate the discriminant ability of the subscales, particularly positive affect; whether the somatic items in the CES-D artificially inflate affective scores; and the optimal cut off score for the CES-D. Methods. We compared the 3 scales to diagnostic criterion of MD, GAD, and comorbid disorder using receiver operator characteristic (ROC) and logistic regression analyses. The sample consisted of a national panel of 415 individuals with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Results. Each of the scales had high sensitivity and specificity (areas under the curve: CES-D = 0.92, negative affect = 0.88, positive affect and EMAS = 0.82). The CES-D, however, demonstrated better sensitivity and specificity than the positive affect and the EMAS, but not the negative affect scale. Conclusion. All 3 self-reports have high combined sensitivity and specificity as measures of affective disorders among RA patients.
KW - Affective disorder
KW - Distress
KW - ROC
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037636749&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037636749&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/art.11116
DO - 10.1002/art.11116
M3 - Article
C2 - 12794793
AN - SCOPUS:0037636749
VL - 49
SP - 368
EP - 376
JO - Arthritis care & research
JF - Arthritis care & research
SN - 2151-4658
IS - 3
ER -