4.2 Article

The Psychometric Properties of PHQ-4 Depression and Anxiety Screening Scale Among College Students

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PSYCHIATRIC NURSING
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 457-462

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apnu.2016.01.014

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Depression and anxiety are some of the most common causes of morbidity, social dysfunction, and reduced academic performance in college students. The combination of improved surveillance and access to care would result in better outreach. Brief screening tools can help reach larger populations of college students efficiently. However, reliability and validity of brief screeners for anxiety and depression have not been assessed in college students. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess in a sample of college students the psychometric properties of PHQ-4, a brief screening tool for depression and anxiety. Undergraduate students were recruited from general education classes at a Midwestern university. Students were given a questionnaire that asked them whether they had been diagnosed by a doctor or health professional with anxiety or depression. Next, they were asked to respond to the items on the PHQ-4 scale. A total of 934 students responded to the survey (response rate = 72%). Majority of the participants were females (63%) and Whites (80%). The internal reliability of PHQ-4 was found to be high (alpha = 0.81). Those who were diagnosed with depression or anxiety had statistically significantly higher scores on PHQ-4 (p < 0.01). Corrected item total correlations for PHQ-4 were between r = 0.66 and r = 0.80. PHQ-4 operating characteristics were estimated and area under the curve (AUC) values were 0.835 and 0.787, respectively for anxiety and depression. The PHQ-4 is a reliable and valid tool that can serve as a mass screener for depression and anxiety in young adults. Widespread implementation of this screening tool should be explored across college campuses. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据