4.7 Article

The V-5 provides quick, accurate and cross-culturally valid measures of psychiatric symptoms

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 298, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113651

关键词

Visual analog scale; V-5; Psychiatric screener; Cross-cultural assessment; Online testing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to cross-validate the V-5 psychiatric screener across different administration formats and examinee acculturation levels. The V-5 showed high test-retest reliability on Depression and Pain scales, and was sensitive to changes in symptom severity. Classification accuracy was driven by the base rate of the target construct, and was consistent regardless of administration format or English proficiency level. The V-5 demonstrated potential as a cross-culturally robust screening tool sensitive to changes over time, suitable for online administration, and applicable to examinees with limited English proficiency.
This study was designed to cross-validate the V-5, a quick psychiatric screener, across administration formats and levels of examinee acculturation. The V-5 was administered twice (once at the beginning and once at the end of the testing session) to three samples (N = 277) with varying levels of symptom severity and English language proficiency, varying type of administration, alongside traditional self-reported symptom inventories as criterion measures. The highest rest-retest reliability was observed on the Depression (.84) and Pain scales (.85). The V-5 was sensitive to the variability in symptom severity. Classification accuracy was driven by the base rate of the target construct, and was invariant across administration format (in-person or online) or level of English proficiency. The V-5 demonstrated promise as a cross-culturally robust screening instrument that is sensitive to change over time, lends itself to online administration, and is suitable for examinees with limited English proficiency.

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

4.7
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