{"title":"The Major Depression Inventory for diagnosing according to DSM-5 and ICD-11: Psychometric properties and validity in a Swedish general population","authors":"Andreas Lundin, Jette Möller, Yvonne Forsell","doi":"10.1002/mpr.1966","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>The Major Depression Inventory (MDI) was constructed to assess DSM-IV and ICD-10 depression symptoms, and does not fully cover the symptoms listed in DSM-5 and ICD-11. This study aimed to augment the MDI to the new diagnostic standards by adding a new item, and to assess and compare the measurement performance of the MDI items and diagnostic algorithms for major depression according to DSM-IV, ICD-10, DSM-5 and ICD-11.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Surveys collected 2001–2003 and 2021, including self-assessed MDI were used. A new hopelessness item was constructed and analyzed alongside the hopelessness item in the Symptom Checklist. The performance of items was compared using Rasch and Mokken analyses. Criterion validity was examined using equivalent diagnoses from psychiatric interview (Schedules for Clinical Assessments in Neuropsychiatry [SCAN]) as standard.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>MDI information was provided by 8511 individuals in 2001–2003 (SCAN subsample <i>n</i> = 878), and 8863 in 2021. All items, including hopelessness had good psychometric properties. Sensitivity ranged between 56% and 70%, and specificity between 95% and 96%, indicating similar criterion validity.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Hopelessness and the MDI items had good psychometrics. MDI for DSM-5 and ICD-11 had similar validity as for DSM-IV and ICD-10. We recommend that MDI is updated to DSM-5 and ICD-11 by adding a hopelessness item.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50310,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","volume":"32 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/mpr.1966","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.1966","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Objectives
The Major Depression Inventory (MDI) was constructed to assess DSM-IV and ICD-10 depression symptoms, and does not fully cover the symptoms listed in DSM-5 and ICD-11. This study aimed to augment the MDI to the new diagnostic standards by adding a new item, and to assess and compare the measurement performance of the MDI items and diagnostic algorithms for major depression according to DSM-IV, ICD-10, DSM-5 and ICD-11.
Methods
Surveys collected 2001–2003 and 2021, including self-assessed MDI were used. A new hopelessness item was constructed and analyzed alongside the hopelessness item in the Symptom Checklist. The performance of items was compared using Rasch and Mokken analyses. Criterion validity was examined using equivalent diagnoses from psychiatric interview (Schedules for Clinical Assessments in Neuropsychiatry [SCAN]) as standard.
Results
MDI information was provided by 8511 individuals in 2001–2003 (SCAN subsample n = 878), and 8863 in 2021. All items, including hopelessness had good psychometric properties. Sensitivity ranged between 56% and 70%, and specificity between 95% and 96%, indicating similar criterion validity.
Conclusions
Hopelessness and the MDI items had good psychometrics. MDI for DSM-5 and ICD-11 had similar validity as for DSM-IV and ICD-10. We recommend that MDI is updated to DSM-5 and ICD-11 by adding a hopelessness item.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (MPR) publishes high-standard original research of a technical, methodological, experimental and clinical nature, contributing to the theory, methodology, practice and evaluation of mental and behavioural disorders. The journal targets in particular detailed methodological and design papers from major national and international multicentre studies. There is a close working relationship with the US National Institute of Mental Health, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Diagnostic Instruments Committees, as well as several other European and international organisations.
MPR aims to publish rapidly articles of highest methodological quality in such areas as epidemiology, biostatistics, generics, psychopharmacology, psychology and the neurosciences. Articles informing about innovative and critical methodological, statistical and clinical issues, including nosology, can be submitted as regular papers and brief reports. Reviews are only occasionally accepted.
MPR seeks to monitor, discuss, influence and improve the standards of mental health and behavioral neuroscience research by providing a platform for rapid publication of outstanding contributions. As a quarterly journal MPR is a major source of information and ideas and is an important medium for students, clinicians and researchers in psychiatry, clinical psychology, epidemiology and the allied disciplines in the mental health field.