16
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The performance of the K10, K6 and GHQ-12 to screen for present state DSM-IV disorders among disability claimants

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Screening for mental disorders among disability claimants is important, since mental disorders seem to be seriously under-recognized in this population. However, performance of potentially suitable scales is unknown. We aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of three scales, the 10- and 6-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10, K6) and the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), to predict present state mental disorders, classified according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4 th Edition (DSM-IV) among disability claimants.

          Methods

          All scales were completed by a representative sample of persons claiming disability benefit after two years sickness absence (n=293). All diagnoses, both somatic and mental, were included. The gold standard was the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI 3.0) to diagnose present state DSM-IV disorder. Cronbach’s α, sensitivity, specificity, positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV), and the areas under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated.

          Results

          Cronbach’s alpha’s were 0.919 (K10), 0.882 (K6) and 0.906 (GHQ-12). The optimal cut-off scores were 24 (K10), 14 ( K6) and 20 (GHQ-12). The PPV and the NPV for the optimal cut point of the K10 was 0.53 and 0.89, for the K6 0.51 and 0.87, and for the GHQ-12 0.50 and 0.82. The AUC’s for 30-day cases were 0.806 (K10; 95% CI 0.749-0.862), 0.796 (K6; 95% CI 0.737-0.854) and 0.695 (GHQ-12; 95% CI 0.626-0.765).

          Conclusions

          The K10 and K6 are reliable and valid scales to screen for present state DSM-IV mental disorder. The optimal cut-off scores are 24 (K10) and 14 (K6). The GHQ-12 (optimal cut-off score: 20) is outperformed by the K10 and K6, which are to be preferred above the GHQ-12. The scores on separate items of the K10 and K6 can be used in disability assessment settings as an agenda for an in-depth follow-up clinical interview to ascertain the presence of present state mental disorder.

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine.

          The clinical performance of a laboratory test can be described in terms of diagnostic accuracy, or the ability to correctly classify subjects into clinically relevant subgroups. Diagnostic accuracy refers to the quality of the information provided by the classification device and should be distinguished from the usefulness, or actual practical value, of the information. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots provide a pure index of accuracy by demonstrating the limits of a test's ability to discriminate between alternative states of health over the complete spectrum of operating conditions. Furthermore, ROC plots occupy a central or unifying position in the process of assessing and using diagnostic tools. Once the plot is generated, a user can readily go on to many other activities such as performing quantitative ROC analysis and comparisons of tests, using likelihood ratio to revise the probability of disease in individual subjects, selecting decision thresholds, using logistic-regression analysis, using discriminant-function analysis, or incorporating the tool into a clinical strategy by using decision analysis.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI)

            This paper presents an overview of the World Mental Health (WMH) Survey Initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) and a discussion of the methodological research on which the development of the instrument was based. The WMH‐CIDI includes a screening module and 40 sections that focus on diagnoses (22 sections), functioning (four sections), treatment (two sections), risk factors (four sections), socio‐demographic correlates (seven sections), and methodological factors (two sections). Innovations compared to earlier versions of the CIDI include expansion of the diagnostic sections, a focus on 12‐month as well as lifetime disorders in the same interview, detailed assessment of clinical severity, and inclusion of information on treatment, risk factors, and consequences. A computer‐assisted version of the interview is available along with a direct data entry software system that can be used to keypunch responses to the paper‐and‐pencil version of the interview. Computer programs that generate diagnoses are also available based on both ICD‐10 and DSM‐IV criteria. Elaborate CD‐ROM‐based training materials are available to teach interviewers how to administer the interview as well as to teach supervisors how to monitor the quality of data collection. Copyright © 2004 Whurr Publishers Ltd.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Interpreting scores on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10).

              To provide normative data on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), a scale that is being increasingly used for clinical and epidemiological purposes. The National Survey of Mental Health And Well-Being was used to provide normative comparative data on symptoms, disability, service utilisation and diagnosis for the range of possible K10 scores. The K10 is related in predictable ways to these other measures. The K10 is suitable to assess morbidity in the population, and may be appropriate for use in clinical practice.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central
                1471-2458
                2013
                12 February 2013
                : 13
                : 128
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Center for Insurance Medicine, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Health Sciences, Community and Occupational Medicine, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Social Security Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
                Article
                1471-2458-13-128
                10.1186/1471-2458-13-128
                3575398
                23402478
                74d52772-80bc-40bd-a6b7-4796d43673aa
                Copyright ©2013 Cornelius et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 20 May 2012
                : 6 February 2013
                Categories
                Research Article

                Public health
                disability,mental disorder,screening,cidi,k10,k6,ghq-12,psychometric,predictive value
                Public health
                disability, mental disorder, screening, cidi, k10, k6, ghq-12, psychometric, predictive value

                Comments

                Comment on this article