Validity and Reliability of Screening Measures for Depression and Anxiety Disorders in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the validity and reliability of screening instruments for depression and anxiety in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: Participants with RA completed the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2 or PHQ-9), the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System depression short form 8a and anxiety short form 8a, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety score (HADS-A) and depression score (HADS-D), the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2- and 7-item scales, and the Kessler-6 scale. Clinical depression and anxiety disorders were confirmed using the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Axis I Disorders (SCID-1) research version. We reported sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value using SCID-1 diagnoses as the criterion standard. Test-retest reliability was assessed with the intraclass correlation coefficient. RESULTS: Of 150 participants, 11.3% had SCID-1-diagnosed depression, 7.3% had SCID-1-diagnosed generalized anxiety disorder, and 19.3% had any SCID-1-diagnosed anxiety disorder. For depression, sensitivity ranged from HADS-D (cut point 11; 35%) to PHQ-2 (88%) and PHQ-9 (87%). Specificity ranged from PHQ-9 (77%) and PHQ-2 (84%) to HADS-D (cut point 11; 94%). Positive predictive value ranged from 30% to 43%. Negative predictive value ranged from 92% to 98%. For generalized anxiety disorder, sensitivity ranged from HADS-A (cut point 11; 45%) to HADS-A (cut point 8; 91%). Specificity ranged from 81% to 89% for all measures except the HADS-A (cut point 8; 63%). Intraclass correlation coefficient estimates ranging from 0.69 to 0.88 confirmed good test-retest reliability. CONCLUSION: Depression screening instruments had good diagnostic performance; anxiety instruments were more variable. Identified depression and anxiety require clinical confirmation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".