TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disorder-specific instruments for depression

T2 - An assessment in three longitudinal datasets

AU - de Beurs, Edwin

AU - Vissers, Ellen

AU - Schoevers, Robert

AU - Carlier, Ingrid V. E.

AU - van Hemert, Albert M.

AU - Meesters, Ybe

PY - 2019/1

Y1 - 2019/1

N2 - Background: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) may enhance individual treatment and is also advocated as a means to compare the outcome of different treatment programs or providers. There is debate on the optimal instruments to be used for these separate tasks. Methods: Three sets with longitudinal data from ROM were analyzed with correlational analysis and repeated measures ANOVAs, allowing for a head-to-head comparison of measures regarding their sensitivity to detect change. The responsiveness of three disorder-specific instruments, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, and the Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire, was compared to three generic instruments, the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90), the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45), and the Brief Symptom Inventory, respectively. Results: In two of the three datasets, disorder-specific measures were more responsive compared to the total score on generic instruments. Subscale scores for depression embedded within generic instruments are second best and almost match disorder-specific scales in responsiveness. No evidence of a desynchronous response on outcome measures was found. Limitations: The present study compares measures head-to-had, and responsiveness is not assessed against an external criterion, such as clinical recovery. Discussion: Disorder-specific measures yield the most precise assessment for individual treatment and are recommended for clinical use. Generic measures may allow for comparisons across diagnostic groups and their embedded subscales approach the responsiveness of disorder-specific measures.

AB - Background: Routine outcome monitoring (ROM) may enhance individual treatment and is also advocated as a means to compare the outcome of different treatment programs or providers. There is debate on the optimal instruments to be used for these separate tasks. Methods: Three sets with longitudinal data from ROM were analyzed with correlational analysis and repeated measures ANOVAs, allowing for a head-to-head comparison of measures regarding their sensitivity to detect change. The responsiveness of three disorder-specific instruments, the Beck Depression Inventory, the Inventory of Depressive Symptoms, and the Mood and Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire, was compared to three generic instruments, the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90), the Outcome Questionnaire (OQ-45), and the Brief Symptom Inventory, respectively. Results: In two of the three datasets, disorder-specific measures were more responsive compared to the total score on generic instruments. Subscale scores for depression embedded within generic instruments are second best and almost match disorder-specific scales in responsiveness. No evidence of a desynchronous response on outcome measures was found. Limitations: The present study compares measures head-to-had, and responsiveness is not assessed against an external criterion, such as clinical recovery. Discussion: Disorder-specific measures yield the most precise assessment for individual treatment and are recommended for clinical use. Generic measures may allow for comparisons across diagnostic groups and their embedded subscales approach the responsiveness of disorder-specific measures.

KW - assessment

KW - depression

KW - psychometrics

KW - responsiveness

KW - routine outcome monitoring

KW - QUALITY-OF-LIFE

KW - HEALTH-STATUS

KW - QUESTIONNAIRE

KW - INVENTORY

KW - DISEASE

KW - ANXIETY

KW - SCALE

KW - VALIDATION

KW - MODEL

KW - SQ-48

U2 - 10.1002/da.22809

DO - 10.1002/da.22809

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 93

EP - 102

JO - Depression and Anxiety

JF - Depression and Anxiety

SN - 1091-4269

IS - 1

ER -