Diagnostic validity of the anxiety and depression questions from the Well-Being Process Questionnaire
Background and Aim: Previous research shows that the Well-being Process Questionnaire (WPQ) has good content validity, construct validity, discriminant validity and reliability.The present research examined the diagnostic validity of the anxiety and depression questions from the WPQ by comparing them with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS) from which they were derived.
Methods: One hundred and twenty university staff members aged 20-64 participated in the study which involved an anonymous online survey. The data were used to assess the ability of single item measures, rated on a 10 point scale, to correctly identify a respondent that meets a diagnostic criteria, in this case clinical levels of depression or anxiety.
Results: This analysis involved comparison with an established measure (HADS clinical cut-off) in terms of the proportion of those with the condition correctly identified as such (sensitivity) by the single items and the proportion without the condition correctly identified as such (specificity) by the single items. The results showed that a cut-off point at a score of 5 provided the best results for sensitivity and specificity in the depression and anxiety items. Sensitivity at this point was 71.4% and 86.3% for depression and anxiety respectively, while specificity was 85.4% for depression and 72.6% for anxiety.
Conclusions: These findings confirm that the single item anxiety and depression questions from the WPQ can be used as an initial screening tool to identify clinical cases of anxiety and depression.
Relevance for patients: This will provide a rapid method of assessment that will benefit patients and lead to more effective prevention and management.
[1] Mark GM, Smith AP. Stress models: A review and suggested new direction. In: Occupational Health Psychology: European Per- spectives on research, education and practice. Vol. 3. EA-OHP se- ries. Edited by J.Houdmont S. Leka. Nottingham University Press. 2008: 111-144.
[2] Mark G, Smith AP. Effects of occupational stress, job character- istics, coping and attributional style on the mental health and job satisfaction of university employees. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 2011, 25: 63-78.
[3] Mark G, Smith AP. Occupational stress, job characteristics, cop- ing and mental health of nurses. British J Health Psychl, 2012, 17: 505-521.
[4] Williams GM, Smith AP. Using single-item measures to examine the relationships between work, personality, and well-being in the workplace. Psychology: Special Edition on Positive Psychology, 2016, 7: 753-767.
[5] Williams G, Pendlebury H, Smith AP. Stress and well-being of nurses: an investigation using the demands-resources- individ- ual effects (DRIVE) model and well-being process questionnaire (WPQ). Jacobs J Depression and Anxiet, 2017, 1: 1-8.
[6] Williams G, Thomas K, Smith AP. Stress and well-being of univer- sity staff: an investigation using the demands-resources- individ- ual effects (DRIVE) model and well-being process questionnaire (WPQ). Psychol, 2017, 8: 1919-1940.
[7] Williams GM. Researching and developing mental health and well- being assessment tools for supporting employees and employers in Wales. 2015. PhD thesis, Cardiff University.
[8] Cronbach LJ. Essentials of Psychological Testing (5th ed.). 1990. New York, NY: HarperCollinsPublishers, Inc.
[9] Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). 1978. London:McGraw-Hill.
[10] Thompson ER. Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS). J Cross-Cultural Psychol, 2007, 38: 227-242.
[11] Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.). 2007. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
[12] Costa PT, McCrae RR. Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: Happy and unhappy people. J Personality Social Psychol, 1980, 38: 668-678.
[13] Williams G, Smith AP. Measuring wellbeing in the workplace: Sin- gle item scales of depression and anxiety. In Contemporary Er- gonomics and Human Factors 2013. Martin Anderson (ed). CRC Press: Taylor Francis. London. ISBN 978-1-138-00042-1. Pg 87- 94.
[14] Viswanathan M, Bergen M, Dutta S, Childers T. Does a single re- sponse category in a scale completely capture a response? Psychol Marketing, 1996, 13: 457-479.
[15] Heise DR. Separating reliability and stability in test-retest correla- tion. Am Sociol Rev, 1969: 93-101.
[16] Wanous JP, Hudy MJ. Single-Item Reliability: A Replication and Extension. Org Res Methods, 2001, 4: 361-375.
[17] Wanous JP, Reichers AE, Hudy MJ. Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? J Appl Psychol, 1997, 82: 247- 251.
[18] ZigmondAS, SnaithRP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 1983, 67: 361-370.