Title |
A computerised screening instrument for adolescent depression: population-based validation and application to a two-phase case-control study
|
---|---|
Published in |
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, April 1999
|
DOI | 10.1007/s001270050129 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
G. C. Patton, C. Coffey, M. Posterino, J. B. Carlin, R. Wolfe, G. Bowes |
Abstract |
Computer-administered questionnaires have been little explored as a potentially effective and inexpensive alternative to pencil and paper screening tests. A self-administered computerised form of the revised Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS-R) was compared with the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) in a two-phase study of 2032 Australian high school students (mean age 15.7 years) drawn from a stratified random sample of 44 schools in the state of Victoria, Australia. Prevalence, sensitivity and specificity were estimated using weighting to compensate for the two-phase sampling. Point prevalence estimates of depression using the CIS-R were 1.8% for males and 5.6% for females--an overall prevalence of 3.2%. Prevalence estimates for depression in the past 6 months using the CIDI were 5.2% for males and 16.9% for females--an overall estimate of 12.1%. The CIS-R had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.49 and negative predictive value (NPV) of 0.91 for CIDI depression in the past 6 months. Specificity was very high (0.97) but sensitivity low (0.18), indicating that a majority of those with a CIDI-defined depressive episode in the past 6 months were not recognised at a single screening using the CIS-R. Even so, the CIS-R has proved at least as good as any pencil and paper questionnaire in identifying cases for nested case-control studies of adolescent depression. Further exploration of strategies such as serial screening to enhance sensitivity is warranted. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Sweden | 1 | 2% |
South Africa | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 42 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 7 | 16% |
Student > Master | 7 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
Other | 5 | 11% |
Professor | 3 | 7% |
Other | 11 | 25% |
Unknown | 5 | 11% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 34% |
Psychology | 11 | 25% |
Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
Arts and Humanities | 1 | 2% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 11 | 25% |