Validation of a Revised Visual Analog Scale for Premenstrual Mood Symptoms: Results from Prospective and Retrospective Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have demonstrated that visual analog scales (VASs) are valid and reliable instruments for measuring the severity of premenstrual symptoms. Most of these studies, though, predate the introduction of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). Our objective was to assess the reliability and validity of VASs that were revised to better reflect the DSM-IV definition of PMDD. METHODS: Concurrent information from the well-validated Premenstrual Tension Syndrome-Observer (PMTS-O) rating scale was used to evaluate the revised VASs. Data from 4 randomized controlled trials (n = 1208) evaluating the efficacy of paroxetine for the treatment of PMDD were used. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used to evaluate the internal consistency of the core VAS mood items. Pearson's correlation between scores from the 2 scales was used to assess reliability. RESULTS: The internal consistency among the core VAS mood items (Cronbach's alpha > 0.90 across trials) was high. Luteal VAS scores and corresponding PMTS-O scores were moderately correlated at baseline (P < 0.01). Luteal VAS change scores and corresponding PMTS-O change scores were strongly correlated (P < 0.01). These results did not differ regardless of whether the PMTS-O data were collected prospectively or retrospectively. CONCLUSION: The revised VASs, which approximate the current DSM-IV definition of PMDD, provide a valid and reliable measure of the severity of premenstrual symptoms when evaluated against the validated PMTS-O scale. Our results also suggest that, whether observers assessed severity of PMDD symptoms retrospectively or prospectively using the PMTS-O scale, the correlations with the patient-reported VAS scores were comparable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".