4.4 Article

Screening for social anxiety disorder in the clinical setting: using the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale

Journal

JOURNAL OF ANXIETY DISORDERS
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 661-673

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0887-6185(02)00134-2

Keywords

Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale; social anxiety disorder; clinical settings

Funding

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R10MH044119, R01MH040121, R01MH044119, R10MH040121, P50MH030906, P30MH030906] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [P05 MH30906, MH44119, MH40121] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: We sought to determine optimal cutoff values for the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) total and subscale scores for the diagnosis of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and designation of the generalized subtype of SAD. Method: Three hundred and sixty-four patients from a multi-site sample who met criteria for SAD according to structured diagnostic interview, 262 of whom met criteria for the generalized subtype, and 34 control participants free of current Axis I disorders participated in this study. All participants were given the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale by an independent assessor. Results: Receiver Operating Characteristics analysis revealed that the LSAS performed well in identifying individuals who met criteria for SAD and for the generalized subtype of SAD. Cutoffs of 30 for SAD and 60 for its generalized subtype on the LSAS total score represented the best balance of specificity and sensitivity. Conclusions: These findings provide support for the use of the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale for the identification of individuals with SAD and its generalized subtype in clinical settings. Identification of patients with SAD should increase the percentage of these patients who receive appropriate treatment for this impairing disorder. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available