12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Heterogeneity of Mental Health Assessment

      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

          Across the landscape of mental health research and diagnosis, there is a diverse range of questionnaires and interviews available for use by clinicians and researchers to determine patient treatment plans or investigate internal and external etiologies. Although individually, these tools have each been assessed for their validity and reliability, there is little research examining the consistency between them in terms of what symptoms they assess, and how they assess those symptoms. Here, we provide an analysis of 126 different questionnaires and interviews commonly used to diagnose and screen for 10 different disorder types including depression, anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), addiction, bipolar disorder, eating disorder, and schizophrenia, as well as comparator questionnaires and interviews that offer an all-in-one cross-disorder assessment of mental health. We demonstrate substantial inconsistency in the inclusion and emphasis of symptoms assessed within disorders as well as considerable symptom overlap across disorder-specific tools. Within the same disorder, similarity scores across assessment tools ranged from 29% for assessment of bipolar disorder to a maximum of 58% for OCD. Furthermore, when looking across disorders, 60% of symptoms were assessed in at least half of all disorders illustrating the extensive overlap in symptom profiles between disorder-specific assessment tools. Biases in assessment toward emotional, cognitive, physical or behavioral symptoms were also observed, further adding to the heterogeneity across assessments. Analysis of other characteristics such as the time period over which symptoms were assessed, as well as whether there was a focus toward frequency, severity or duration of symptoms also varied substantially across assessment tools. The consequence of this inconsistent and heterogeneous assessment landscape is that it hinders clinical diagnosis and treatment and frustrates understanding of the social, environmental, and biological factors that contribute to mental health symptoms and disorders. Altogether, it underscores the need for standardized assessment tools that are more disorder agnostic and span the full spectrum of mental health symptoms to aid the understanding of underlying etiologies and the discovery of new treatments for psychiatric dysfunction.

          Related collections

          Most cited references77

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

          The drug abuse screening test

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

            The Michigan alcoholism screening test: the quest for a new diagnostic instrument.

            M L Selzer (1971)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (CAPS-5): Development and Initial Psychometric Evaluation in Military Veterans.

              The Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS) is an extensively validated and widely used structured diagnostic interview for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The CAPS was recently revised to correspond with PTSD criteria in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). This article describes the development of the CAPS for DSM-5 (CAPS-5) and presents the results of an initial psychometric evaluation of CAPS-5 scores in 2 samples of military veterans (Ns = 165 and 207). CAPS-5 diagnosis demonstrated strong interrater reliability (к = .78 to 1.00, depending on the scoring rule) and test-retest reliability (к = .83), as well as strong correspondence with a diagnosis based on the CAPS for DSM-IV (CAPS-IV; к = .84 when optimally calibrated). CAPS-5 total severity score demonstrated high internal consistency (α = .88) and interrater reliability (ICC = .91) and good test-retest reliability (ICC = .78). It also demonstrated good convergent validity with total severity score on the CAPS-IV (r = .83) and PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (r = .66) and good discriminant validity with measures of anxiety, depression, somatization, functional impairment, psychopathy, and alcohol abuse (rs = .02 to .54). Overall, these results indicate that the CAPS-5 is a psychometrically sound measure of DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis and symptom severity. Importantly, the CAPS-5 strongly corresponds with the CAPS-IV, which suggests that backward compatibility with the CAPS-IV was maintained and that the CAPS-5 provides continuity in evidence-based assessment of PTSD in the transition from DSM-IV to DSM-5 criteria. (PsycINFO Database Record
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychiatry
                Front Psychiatry
                Front. Psychiatry
                Frontiers in Psychiatry
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-0640
                27 February 2020
                2020
                : 11
                : 76
                Affiliations
                [1] Sapien Labs , Arlington, VA, United States
                Author notes

                Edited by: Amitai Abramovitch, Texas State University, United States

                Reviewed by: Caleb Lack, University of Central Oklahoma, United States; Joseph McGuire, Johns Hopkins University, United States; Joseph Etherton, Texas State University, United States

                *Correspondence: Jennifer J. Newson, jennifer@ 123456sapienlabs.org

                This article was submitted to Public Mental Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychiatry

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00076
                7057249
                32174852
                9ca9541a-0cdd-4ef6-adc2-fd7bb9446cc4
                Copyright © 2020 Newson, Hunter and Thiagarajan

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 09 October 2019
                : 30 January 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 8, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 178, Pages: 24, Words: 13350
                Categories
                Psychiatry
                Original Research

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                mental health,psychiatric,diagnosis,transdiagnostic,questionnaires,assessment,cross-disorder

                Comments

                Comment on this article