Spinhoven P, Ormel J, Sloekers P P, Kempen G I, Speckens A E, Van Hemert A M
Department of Psychiatry, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
Psychol Med. 1997 Mar;27(2):363-70. doi: 10.1017/s0033291796004382.
Research on the dimensional structure and reliability of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and its relationship with age is scarce. Moreover, its efficacy in determining the presence of depression in different patient groups has been questioned.
Psychometric properties of the HADS were assessed in six different groups of Dutch subjects (N = 6165): (1) a random sample of younger adults (age 18-65 years) (N = 199); (2) a random sample of elderly subjects of 57 to 65 years of age (N = 1901); (3) a random sample of elderly subjects of 66 years or older (N = 3293); (4) a sample of consecutive general practice patients (N = 112); (5) a sample of consecutive general medical out-patients with unexplained somatic symptoms (N = 169); and (6) a sample of consecutive psychiatric out-patients (N = 491).
Evidence for a two-factor solution corresponding to the original two subscales of the HADS was found, although anxiety and depression subscales were strongly correlated. Homogeneity and test-retest reliability of the total scale and the subscales were good. The dimensional structure and reliability of the HADS was stable across medical settings and age groups. The correlations between HADS scores and age were small. The total HADS scale showed a better balance between sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) in identifying cases of psychiatric disorder as defined by the Present State Examination than the depression subscale in identifying cases of unipolar depression as defined by ICD-8.
The moderate PPV suggests that the HADS is best used as a screening questionnaire and not as a 'case-identifier' for psychiatric disorder or depression.
关于医院焦虑抑郁量表(HADS)的维度结构、信度及其与年龄的关系的研究较少。此外,其在确定不同患者群体中抑郁症存在情况时的有效性也受到了质疑。
在六组不同的荷兰受试者(N = 6165)中评估了HADS的心理测量特性:(1)18至65岁年轻成年人的随机样本(N = 199);(2)57至65岁老年人的随机样本(N = 1901);(3)66岁及以上老年人的随机样本(N = 3293);(4)连续的全科门诊患者样本(N = 112);(5)有不明躯体症状的连续普通内科门诊患者样本(N = 169);以及(6)连续的精神科门诊患者样本(N = 491)。
尽管焦虑和抑郁分量表高度相关,但发现了与HADS原始两个分量表相对应的两因素解决方案的证据。总量表和分量表的同质性和重测信度良好。HADS的维度结构和信度在不同医疗环境和年龄组中是稳定的。HADS得分与年龄之间的相关性较小。与根据《现况检查》定义的精神障碍病例相比,在识别由《国际疾病分类第8版》定义的单相抑郁症病例方面,HADS总量表在敏感性和阳性预测值(PPV)之间显示出更好的平衡,优于抑郁分量表。
中等的PPV表明,HADS最好用作筛查问卷,而不是精神障碍或抑郁症的“病例识别工具”。