title: Assessing validity of a depression screening instrument in the absence of a gold standard.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  We evaluated the extent to which use of a hypothesized imperfect gold standard, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), biases the estimates of diagnostic accuracy of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). We also evaluate how statistical correction can be used to address this bias.
  
  
  METHODS
  The study was conducted among 926 adults where structured interviews were conducted to collect information about participants' current major depressive disorder using PHQ-9 and CIDI instruments. First, we evaluated the relative psychometric properties of PHQ-9 using CIDI as a gold standard. Next, we used a Bayesian latent class model to correct for the bias.
  
  
  RESULTS
  In comparison with CIDI, the relative sensitivity and specificity of the PHQ-9 for detecting major depressive disorder at a cut point of 10 or more were 53.1% (95% confidence interval: 45.4%-60.8%) and 77.5% (95% confidence interval, 74.5%-80.5%), respectively. Using a Bayesian latent class model to correct for the bias arising from the use of an imperfect gold standard increased the sensitivity and specificity of PHQ-9 to 79.8% (95% Bayesian credible interval, 64.9%-90.8%) and 79.1% (95% Bayesian credible interval, 74.7%-83.7%), respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our results provided evidence that assessing diagnostic validity of mental health screening instrument, where application of a gold standard might not be available, can be accomplished by using appropriate statistical methods.
authors.affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA; Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: bgelaye@hsph.harvard.edu.
authors.forename: Bizu
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Gelaye
authors.affiliation: Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
authors.forename: Mahlet G
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Tadesse
authors.affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
authors.forename: Michelle A
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Williams
authors.affiliation: Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Rehabilitation Medicine and Epidemiology, Seattle, WA.
authors.forename: Jesse R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Fann
authors.affiliation: Department of Epidemiology, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA.
authors.forename: Ann
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Vander Stoep
authors.affiliation: Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA.
authors.forename: Xiao-Hua
authors.initials: XH
authors.lastname: Andrew Zhou
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001499:Bayes Theorem; D003863:Depression / Q000175:diagnosis*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000295:instrumentation*; D008603:Mental Health; D008875:Middle Aged; D011594:Psychometrics / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires / Q000592:standards*
keywords: Bayesian analysis; Depression; Imperfect gold standard; Screening