Article

Further Validation of the IDAS: Evidence of Convergent, Discriminant, Criterion, and Incremental Validity

Department of Psychiatry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, United States
Psychological Assessment (Impact Factor: 2.99). 10/2008; 20(3):248-59. DOI: 10.1037/a0012570
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The authors explicated the validity of the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms (IDAS; D. Watson et al., 2007) in 2 samples (306 college students and 605 psychiatric patients). The IDAS scales showed strong convergent validity in relation to parallel interview-based scores on the Clinician Rating version of the IDAS; the mean convergent correlations were .51 and .62 in the student and patient samples, respectively. With the exception of the Well-Being Scale, the scales also consistently demonstrated significant discriminant validity. Furthermore, the scales displayed substantial criterion validity in relation to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) mood and anxiety disorder diagnoses in the patient sample. The authors identified particularly clear and strong associations between (a) major depression and the IDAS General Depression, Dysphoria and Well-Being scales, (b) panic disorder and IDAS Panic, (c) posttraumatic stress disorder and IDAS Traumatic Intrusions, and (d) social phobia and IDAS Social Anxiety. Finally, in logistic regression analyses, the IDAS scales showed significant incremental validity in predicting several DSM-IV diagnoses when compared against the Beck Depression Inventory-II (A. T. Beck, R. A. Steer, & G. K. Brown, 1996) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (A. T. Beck & R. A. Steer, 1990).

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Elizabeth A McDade-Montez, Aug 31, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
216 Views
  • Source
    • "Items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from " not at all " to " extremely. " The IDAS subscales show strong internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity with psychiatric diagnoses and self-report measures; and short-term retest reliability (r ¼ 0.79) with both community, and psychiatric patient samples (Watson et al., 2008, 2007). The present study used the panic subscale (8 items; e.g. "
  • Source
    • "Items are answered on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from " not at all " to " extremely. " The IDAS subscales show strong internal consistency, convergent and discriminant validity with psychiatric diagnoses and self-report measures; and short-term retest reliability (r ¼ 0.79) with both community, and psychiatric patient samples (Watson et al., 2008, 2007). The present study used the panic subscale (8 items; e.g. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present investigation examined the interactive effects of anxiety sensitivity and mindful attention in relation to anxiety and depressive symptoms and psychopathology among 145 adult Latinos (85.5% female; Mage=39.9, SD=10.8 and 98.6% used Spanish as their first language) who attended a community-based primary healthcare clinic. As expected, the interaction between anxiety sensitivity and mindful attention was significantly related to number of mood and anxiety disorders, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms. No significant interaction, however, was evident for panic (anxious arousal) symptoms. The form of the significant interaction indicated that Latinos reporting co-occurring higher levels of anxiety sensitivity and lower levels of mindful attention evinced the greatest levels of anxiety/depressive psychopathology, social anxiety, and depressive symptoms. These data provide novel empirical evidence suggesting that there is clinically-relevant interplay between anxiety sensitivity and mindful attention in regard to a relatively wide array of anxiety and depressive variables among Latinos in a primary care medical setting. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
    07/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.psychres.2015.07.026
    • "The IDAS scales show strong psychometric properties compared to commonly used depression and anxiety measures (Watson et al., 2007, 2008). We present data for the five IDAS scales that have the strongest links to specific DSM-IV diagnoses (Watson et al., 2008): General Depression, Social Anxiety, Panic, Traumatic Intrusions, and Anxious Mood. Results Diagnostic Reliability Estimates of diagnostic reliability assessed by the audiorecording method are shown in the left column of Table 2, along with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals (samples ϭ 1000). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Diagnostic reliability is essential for the science and practice of psychology, in part because reliability is necessary for validity. Recently, the DSM-5 field trials documented lower diagnostic reliability than past field trials and the general research literature, resulting in substantial criticism of the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria. Rather than indicating specific problems with DSM-5, however, the field trials may have revealed long-standing diagnostic issues that have been hidden due to a reliance on audio/video recordings for estimating reliability. We estimated the reliability of DSM-IV diagnoses using both the standard audio-recording method and the test-retest method used in the DSM-5 field trials, in which different clinicians conduct separate interviews. Psychiatric patients (N = 339) were diagnosed using the SCID-I/P; 218 were diagnosed a second time by an independent interviewer. Diagnostic reliability using the audio-recording method (N = 49) was "good" to "excellent" (M κ = .80) and comparable to the DSM-IV field trials estimates. Reliability using the test-retest method (N = 218) was "poor" to "fair" (M κ = .47) and similar to DSM-5 field-trials' estimates. Despite low test-retest diagnostic reliability, self-reported symptoms were highly stable. Moreover, there was no association between change in self-report and change in diagnostic status. These results demonstrate the influence of method on estimates of diagnostic reliability. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).
    Journal of Abnormal Psychology 06/2015; DOI:10.1037/abn0000069 · 4.86 Impact Factor
Show more