McQuillan Julia, Fifield Judith, Sheehan T Joseph, Reisine Susan, Tennen Howard, Hesselbrock Victor, Rothfield Naomi
University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA.
Arthritis Rheum. 2003 Jun 15;49(3):368-76. doi: 10.1002/art.11116.
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.
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).
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.
All 3 self-reports have high combined sensitivity and specificity as measures of affective disorders among RA patients.
比较3种常用的精神症状检查表(流行病学研究中心抑郁量表[CES-D]、正负性情绪量表和恩德勒多维焦虑量表[EMAS]),以确定它们的敏感性、特异性以及区分疾病(重度抑郁症[MD]、广泛性焦虑症[GAD])和无疾病的能力。比较这些检查表区分疾病类型(MD和GAD)的能力。评估分量表的判别能力,特别是正性情绪;CES-D中的躯体项目是否会人为抬高情绪得分;以及CES-D的最佳截断分数。
我们使用受试者工作特征(ROC)和逻辑回归分析,将这3种量表与MD、GAD及共病的诊断标准进行比较。样本包括一个由415名类风湿性关节炎(RA)患者组成的全国性小组。
每种量表都具有较高的敏感性和特异性(曲线下面积:CES-D = 0.92,负性情绪 = 0.88,正性情绪和EMAS = 0.82)。然而,CES-D表现出比正性情绪和EMAS更好的敏感性和特异性,但不如负性情绪量表。
作为RA患者情感障碍的测量工具,所有3种自我报告都具有较高的综合敏感性和特异性。