| Title |
The DSM-5 Self-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure as a Screening Tool
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Psychiatric Quarterly, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11126-017-9518-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Leo Bastiaens, James Galus |
| Abstract |
The DSM-5 Self-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure was developed to aid clinicians with a dimensional assessment of psychopathology; however, this measure resembles a screening tool for several symptomatic domains. The objective of the current study was to examine the basic parameters of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive power of the measure as a screening tool. One hundred and fifty patients in a correctional community center filled out the measure prior to a psychiatric evaluation, including the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview screen. The above parameters were calculated for the domains of depression, mania, anxiety, and psychosis. The results showed that the sensitivity and positive predictive power of the studied domains was poor because of a high rate of false positive answers on the measure. However, when the lowest threshold on the Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure was used, the sensitivity of the anxiety and psychosis domains and the negative predictive values for mania, anxiety and psychosis were good. In conclusion, while it is foreseeable that some clinicians may use the DSM-5 Self-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure as a screening tool, it should not be relied on to identify positive findings. It functioned well in the negative prediction of mania, anxiety and psychosis symptoms. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 88 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 18 | 20% |
| Unknown | 22 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 39 | 44% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 11% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 5% |
| Unknown | 27 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2017.
All research outputs
#20,425,762
of 22,977,819 outputs
Outputs from Psychiatric Quarterly
#565
of 626 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,318
of 312,894 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychiatric Quarterly
#10
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,977,819 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 626 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,894 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.