情绪和焦虑症诊断面谈的 "筛选 "问题的准确性是否存在亚群体差异?

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1002/mpr.70008
Matthew Sunderland, Tim Slade
{"title":"情绪和焦虑症诊断面谈的 \"筛选 \"问题的准确性是否存在亚群体差异?","authors":"Matthew Sunderland,&nbsp;Tim Slade","doi":"10.1002/mpr.70008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>To examine the impact of potential measurement bias (i.e., differential item functioning [DIF]) across sex, age, employment, location, and substance use disorders on the screening properties of epidemiological surveys that utilise screening questions when estimating prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Data comprised of 15,893 respondents who completed the 2020–2022 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Questions from the screening module of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 were analysed using confirmatory factor analysis and DIF across subgroups of interest. Sensitivity, specificity, and classification rate were derived and compared across models that did and did not adjust for significant levels of DIF.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Sources of DIF were identified across the items was due to age and sex at birth with relatively fewer items displaying DIF across employment, location, and substance use disorders. In terms of screening, the absolute differences in sensitivity and specificity between the DIF-free and DIF models ranged from 0.001 to 0.091.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>The current study found some evidence of DIF in the screening questions used to evaluate mental health disorder prevalence. However, the overall influence of DIF on screening into at least one mood and anxiety disorder module was found to be minimal.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50310,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","volume":"33 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11541601/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are there subgroup differences in the accuracy of ‘screening’ questions for mood and anxiety disorder diagnostic interviews?\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Sunderland,&nbsp;Tim Slade\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mpr.70008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objective</h3>\\n \\n <p>To examine the impact of potential measurement bias (i.e., differential item functioning [DIF]) across sex, age, employment, location, and substance use disorders on the screening properties of epidemiological surveys that utilise screening questions when estimating prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Data comprised of 15,893 respondents who completed the 2020–2022 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Questions from the screening module of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 were analysed using confirmatory factor analysis and DIF across subgroups of interest. Sensitivity, specificity, and classification rate were derived and compared across models that did and did not adjust for significant levels of DIF.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Sources of DIF were identified across the items was due to age and sex at birth with relatively fewer items displaying DIF across employment, location, and substance use disorders. In terms of screening, the absolute differences in sensitivity and specificity between the DIF-free and DIF models ranged from 0.001 to 0.091.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>The current study found some evidence of DIF in the screening questions used to evaluate mental health disorder prevalence. However, the overall influence of DIF on screening into at least one mood and anxiety disorder module was found to be minimal.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50310,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research\",\"volume\":\"33 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11541601/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"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.70008\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mpr.70008","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: 0

摘要

目的研究不同性别、年龄、就业、地点和药物使用障碍的潜在测量偏差(即项目功能差异 [DIF])对流行病学调查筛查特性的影响:数据由完成 2020-2022 年澳大利亚全国心理健康和福祉调查的 15893 名受访者组成。我们使用确证因子分析和 DIF 分析了综合国际诊断访谈 3.0 筛选模块中的问题,并对相关亚组进行了分析。得出了灵敏度、特异性和分类率,并在调整和不调整显著 DIF 水平的模型中进行了比较:结果:在所有项目中发现的 DIF 源自出生时的年龄和性别,而在就业、地点和药物使用障碍方面出现 DIF 的项目相对较少。在筛查方面,无 DIF 模型和 DIF 模型的灵敏度和特异性的绝对差异在 0.001 到 0.091 之间:本研究发现,在用于评估精神疾病患病率的筛查问题中存在一些 DIF 证据。然而,DIF 对至少一个情绪和焦虑障碍模块筛查的总体影响微乎其微。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are there subgroup differences in the accuracy of ‘screening’ questions for mood and anxiety disorder diagnostic interviews?

Objective

To examine the impact of potential measurement bias (i.e., differential item functioning [DIF]) across sex, age, employment, location, and substance use disorders on the screening properties of epidemiological surveys that utilise screening questions when estimating prevalence of mood and anxiety disorders.

Methods

Data comprised of 15,893 respondents who completed the 2020–2022 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Questions from the screening module of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 were analysed using confirmatory factor analysis and DIF across subgroups of interest. Sensitivity, specificity, and classification rate were derived and compared across models that did and did not adjust for significant levels of DIF.

Results

Sources of DIF were identified across the items was due to age and sex at birth with relatively fewer items displaying DIF across employment, location, and substance use disorders. In terms of screening, the absolute differences in sensitivity and specificity between the DIF-free and DIF models ranged from 0.001 to 0.091.

Conclusions

The current study found some evidence of DIF in the screening questions used to evaluate mental health disorder prevalence. However, the overall influence of DIF on screening into at least one mood and anxiety disorder module was found to be minimal.

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
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
6.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Introducing the “IJMPR Didactic Papers” Network analysis: An overview for mental health research Are there subgroup differences in the accuracy of ‘screening’ questions for mood and anxiety disorder diagnostic interviews? A prediction model for differential resilience to the effects of combat-related stressors in US army soldiers A control theoretic approach to evaluate and inform ecological momentary interventions
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1