PubMed · 15323090
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D S Kaczmarek. 2000. Talking points.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15323090/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire that has been developed in primary care to distinguish non-specific general distress from depression, anxiety and somatization. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate its criterion and construct validity. METHODS: Data from 10 different primary care studies have been used. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing the 4DSQ scores with clinical diagnoses, the GPs' diagnosis of any psychosocial problem for Distress, standardised psychiatric diagnoses for Depression and Anxiety, and GPs' suspicion of somatization for Somatization. ROC analyses and logistic regression analyses were used to examine the associations. Construct validity was evaluated by investigating the inter-correlations between the scales, the factorial structure, the associations with other symptom questionnaires, and the associations with stress, personality and social functioning. The factorial structure of the 4DSQ was assessed through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The associations with other questionnaires were assessed with Pearson correlations and regression analyses. RESULTS: Regarding criterion validity, the Distress scale was associated with any psychosocial diagnosis (area under the ROC curve [AUC] 0.79), the Depression scale was associated with major depression (AUC = 0.83), the Anxiety scale was associated with anxiety disorder (AUC = 0.66), and the Somatization scale was associated with the GPs' suspicion of somatization (AUC = 0.65). Regarding the construct validity, the 4DSQ scales appeared to have considerable inter-correlations (r = 0.35-0.71). However, 30-40% of the variance of each scale was unique for that scale. CFA confirmed the 4-factor structure with a comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.92. The 4DSQ scales correlated with most other questionnaires measuring corresponding constructs. However, the 4DSQ Distress scale appeared to correlate with some other depression scales more than the 4DSQ Depression scale. Measures of stress (i.e. life events, psychosocial problems, and work stress) were mainly associated with Distress, while Distress, in turn, was mainly associated with psychosocial dysfunctioning, including sick leave. CONCLUSION: The 4DSQ seems to be a valid self-report questionnaire to measure distress, depression, anxiety and somatization in primary care patients. The 4DSQ Distress scale appears to measure the most general, most common, expression of psychological problems.
As more states adopt expanded newborn screening for metabolic disorders, the overall number of false positives increases. False-positive screening results have been associated with increased anxiety and stress in parents of infants who require follow-up testing, even after the infant's good health is confirmed. This article reviews the literature on the negative impact of false-positive newborn screening results on parents, along with a review of current communication practices for follow-up screening. The results of this review suggest that parental stress and anxiety can be reduced with improved education and communication to parents, specifically at the time of follow-up screening. Communication strategies with sample materials are proposed.
Studies of biological underpinnings of personality suggest that serotonergic functioning relates to certain personality traits. However, how to interpret the findings depends partly on assumptions about how personality is organized. These assumptions are reflected in the assessment devices used and also in how the data are examined. Review of evidence to date appears to link serotonin function to impulsivity and, to some extent, to hostility. The relation of serotonin function to anxiety proneness is far more questionable. Indeed, when such a relation occurs, it often takes a form opposite to the direction argued by theory. It is recommended that research use measures that discriminate adequately among personality qualities reflecting incentive sensitivity, threat sensitivity, and impulsiveness. Indeed, it is highly desirable to examine facets of each of these qualities separately.