Test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change of the dimensional anxiety scales for DSM-5.
OBJECTIVE
This article reports on the test-retest reliability and sensitivity to change of a set of brief dimensional self-rating questionnaires for social anxiety disorder (SAD-D), specific phobia (SP-D), agoraphobia (AG-D), panic disorder (PD-D), and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD-D), as well as a general cross-cutting anxiety scale (Cross-D), which were developed to supplement categorical diagnoses in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5).


METHODS
The German versions of the dimensional anxiety scales were administered to 218 students followed up approximately 2 weeks later (Study 1) and 55 outpatients (23 with anxiety diagnoses) followed-up 1 year later (Study 2). Probable diagnostic status in students was determined by the DIA-X/M-CIDI stem screening-questionnaire (SSQ). In the clinical sample, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) diagnoses were assessed at Time 1 using the DIA-X/M-CIDI. At Time 2, the patient-version of the Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I) was applied to assess change.


RESULTS
Good psychometric properties, including high test-retest reliability, were found for the dimensional scales except for SP-D. In outpatients, improvement at Time 2 was associated with significant decrease in PD-D, GAD-D, and Cross-D scores. Discussion Major advantages of the scales include that they are brief, concise, and based on a consistent template to measure the cognitive, physiological, and behavioral symptoms of fear and anxiety. Further replication in larger samples is needed. Given its modest psychometric properties, SP-D needs refinement.


CONCLUSIONS
Increasing evidence from diverse samples suggests clinical utility of the dimensional anxiety scales.
1Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,Technische Universität Dresden,Dresden,Germany.
Susanne
S
Knappe
1Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,Technische Universität Dresden,Dresden,Germany.
Jens
J
Klotsche
1Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,Technische Universität Dresden,Dresden,Germany.
Franziska
F
Heyde
1Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,Technische Universität Dresden,Dresden,Germany.
Sarah
S
Hiob
1Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,Technische Universität Dresden,Dresden,Germany.
Jens
J
Siegert
1Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,Technische Universität Dresden,Dresden,Germany.
Jürgen
J
Hoyer
2Department of Psychology,Process-Oriented Assessment,Technische Universität Dresden,Dresden,Germany.
Anja
A
Strobel
3Department of Psychology,University of California,Los Angeles,California,United States.
Richard T
RT
LeBeau
3Department of Psychology,University of California,Los Angeles,California,United States.
Michelle G
MG
Craske
1Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,Technische Universität Dresden,Dresden,Germany.
Hans-Ulrich
HU
Wittchen
1Institute of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy,Technische Universität Dresden,Dresden,Germany.
Katja
K
Beesdo-Baum
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000367:Age Factors; D000368:Aged; D001007:Anxiety / Q000175:diagnosis*; D039721:Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D011569:Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012189:Retrospective Studies; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D055815:Young Adult