DOI 10.1590/s1516-44462011000100013
Validity and reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for Mood Spectrum: Brazilian version (SCIMOODS-VB).
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to translate the Structured Clinical Interview for Mood Spectrum into Brazilian Portuguese, measuring its reliability, validity, and defining scores for bipolar disorders.
METHOD: Questionnaire was translated (into Brazilian Portuguese) and back-translated into English. Sample consisted of 47 subjects with bipolar disorder, 47 with major depressive disorder, 18 with schizophrenia and 22 controls. Inter-rater reliability was tested in 20 subjects with bipolar disorder and MDD. Internal consistency was measured using the Kuder Richardson formula. Forward stepwise discriminant analysis was performed. Scores were compared between groups; manic (M), depressive (D) and total (T) threshold scores were calculated through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.
RESULTS
Kuder Richardson coefficients were between 0.86 and 0.94. Intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.96 (CI 95 % 0.93-0.97). Subjects with bipolar disorder had higher M and T, and similar D scores, when compared to major depressive disorder (ANOVA, p < 0.001). The sub-domains that best discriminated unipolar and bipolar subjects were manic energy and manic mood. M had the best area under the curve (0.909), and values of M equal to or greater than 30 yielded 91.5% sensitivity and 74.5% specificity.
CONCLUSION
Structured Clinical Interview for Mood Spectrum has good reliability and validity. Cut-off of 30 best differentiates subjects with bipolar disorder vs. unipolar depression. A cutoff score of 30 or higher in the mania sub-domain is appropriate to help make a distinction between subjects with bipolar disorder and those with unipolar depression.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.