Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:39:08.884Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The validity of the 21-item version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales as a routine clinical outcome measure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

Felicity Ng ,
Tom Trauer ,
Seetal Dodd ,
Tom Callaly ,
Shirley Campbell  and
Michael Berk
Felicity Ng*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences – Barwon Health, University of Melbourne, Geelong, Australia
Tom Trauer
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia Department of Psychological Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Seetal Dodd
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences – Barwon Health, University of Melbourne, Geelong, Australia
Tom Callaly
Affiliation:
Community and Mental Health, Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia
Shirley Campbell
Affiliation:
The Geelong Clinic, Geelong, Australia
Michael Berk
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences – Barwon Health, University of Melbourne, Geelong, Australia The Geelong Clinic, Geelong, Australia ORYGEN Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia
*
Felicity Ng, Department of Clinical and Biomedical Sciences – Barwon Health, University of Melbourne, Swanston Centre, PO Box 281, Geelong,Victoria 3220, Australia. Tel: +61 3 5260 3154; Fax: +61 3 5246 5165; E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

This study aimed to test the validity of the 21-item Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21) as a routine clinical outcome measure in the private in-patient setting. We hypothesized that it would be a suitable routine outcome instrument in this setting.

Method:

All in-patients treated at a private psychiatric hospital over a period of 24 months were included in the study. Data were collected on demographics, service utilization, diagnosis and a set of four routine measures both at admission and discharge. These measures consisted of the Clinical Global Impressions (CGI) scales, Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS), the Mental Health Questionnaire (MHQ-14) and DASS-21. The results of these measures were compared.

Results:

Of 786 admissions in total, the number of fully completed (ie paired admission and discharge) data sets for the DASS-21 depression, anxiety and stress subscales were 337, 328 and 347, respectively. All subscales showed statistically significant reductions in mean scores from admission to discharge (P < 0.001) and were significantly correlated with all MHQ-14 subscales and significantly related to CGI scale categories. The total DASS-21 and total HoNOS scores were also significantly correlated.

Conclusions:

The findings from the present study support the validity of DASS-21 as a routine clinical outcome measure in the private in-patient setting.

Keywords

depressionoutcome assessmentpsychometricsvalidation studies
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 19 , Issue 5 , October 2007 , pp. 304 - 310
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 Blackwell Munksgaard

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hickie, IB, Andrews, G, Davenport, TA. Measuring outcomes in patients with depression or anxiety: an essential part of clinical practice. Med J Aust 2002;177:205–207. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lovibond, SH, Lovibond, PF. Manual for the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS). Sydney: Psychology Foundation, 1995. Google Scholar
Davies, GR. Outcome study tools and clinical practice. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2006;40:98. Google ScholarPubMed
Antony, MM, Bieling, PJ, Cox, BJ, Enns, MW, Swinson, RP. Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychol Assess 1998;10:176–181. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, TA, Chorpita, BF, Korotitsch, W, Barlow, DH. Psychometric properties of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) in clinical samples. Behav Res Ther 1997;35:79–89. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clara, IP, Cox, BJ, Enns, MW. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales in depressed and anxious patients. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 2001;23:61–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, JR, Henry, JD. The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS): normative data and latent structure in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol 2003;42:111–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovibond, PF, Lovibond, SH. The structure of negative emotional states: comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behav Res Ther 1995;33:335–343. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nieuwenhuijsen, K, De Boer, AG, Verbeek, JH, Blonk, RW, Van Dijk, FJ. The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS): detecting anxiety disorder and depression in employees absent from work because of mental health problems. Occup Environ Med 2003;60 (Suppl. 1): i77–82. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henry, JD, Crawford, JR. The short-form version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS-21): construct validity and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. Br J Clin Psychol 2005;44:227–239. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guy, W. ECDEU assessment manual for psychopharmacology – revised. Rockville: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, NIMH Psychopharmacology Research Branch, Division of Extramural Research Programs, 1976. Google Scholar
Wing, JK, Curtis, RH, Beevor, AS. HoNOS: Health of the Nation Outcome Scales: report on research and development July 1993-December 1995. London: Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1996. Google Scholar
Ware, JE Jr, Sherbourne, CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–483. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, H, Prescott, R. Applied mixed models in medicine. Chichester: Wiley, 1999. Google Scholar
StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 9. College Station: Stata Corporation, 2005. Google Scholar
Arbuckle, JL. Amos users’ guide version 4. Chicago: Small Waters Corporation, 1999. Google Scholar