ADIS from university of new york at Albany

In terms of time-efficient I would suggest PHQ-9, which is quite short. I think it has more or less the same levels of specificity/sensitivity as BDI. We used BDI and STAI, for depression and anxiety respectively, but especially BDI was a bit confusing (at least the greek version) and took considerable time.

So, although I don't have personal experience with it, I would suggest PHQ-9. Also, recently I found this webpage, which hosts a few questionnaire (including PHQ-9) in a wide range of languages:

http://www.phqscreeners.com/select-screener

Hope it helps! Good luck!

here is our take on the issue. BAI (beck's anxiety inventory) is also easy and good.

For a really brief screen, the PHQ-4: 2 items are taken from the PHQ-9 (depression scale) and 2 items are taken from the GAD-7 (anxiety scale). The PHQ-4 (as well as the PHQ-9 and the GAD-7) are free for use.

I think you can als use DASS-21 to measure depression and anxiety. Additionally it will measures stresss as well.

There are many tools for this but you have to check their reability and also specificity. PHQ-4 or PHQ9 (it is used now by google), but also HADS ( Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ). Each item on the questionnaire is scored from 0-3 and this means that a person can score between 0 and 21 for either anxiety or depression. The HADS uses a scale and therefore the data returned from the HADS is ordinal. Through a systematic review of a large number of studies identified a cut-off point of 8/21 for anxiety or depression. For anxiety (HADS-A) this gave a specificity of 0.78 and a sensitivity of 0.9. For depression (HADS-D) this gave a specificity of 0.79 and a sensitivity of 0.83. I like HADS very much, but bassically you can use any patient rated scale with a good validation.

I recommend using the PROMIS depression and the PROMIS anxiety short forms. Public domain. Short, accurate, precise, and sensitive to change.

The DASS would mean that you also include a measure of anxiety. PHQ series, just like HADS are designed for a typical patient population. if you must use the PHQ-4 or PHQ-9, ensure that there are norms for the general population. You can easily get such information from the website suggested by Anastasia Pampouchidou or from other related online sources. Best wishes.

Dear Beatriz,

Please note that the GHQ consists of four sub-components: somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, and depression. Each component consists of 7 questions. SCL-90-R has anxiety and depression scales. You may extract them and use them. Best wishes.

GHQ is not a good scale for this purpose according to my experience and opinion.

PHQ will yield excellent results

this link is useful

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK349029/

regards

The answers given so far just go to show the wide choice available.

I would tend to go for HADS, or PHQ-9. That said, I've very little experience in questionnaire use in this sort of context - I don't use them for diagnosis in routine clinical practice, since I believe that their main use is in sequential follow-up, to enable a more objective disentangling of symptoms, particularly in mixed depressive/anxiety cases. This helps to demonstrate progress, (or the lack of it).

In any case, I try not to see people more than once.

bw

Chris Ide

the selection of instruments should be based on the following criteria

1. less numbers of items

2. good reliability and vailidity

3. easy language

4. cultural sensitivity (because there is variation in symptoms reported by collectivist culture and individualistic culture)

in my practice in collectivist culture, i found DASS-21 and HADS as good instruments. one more good instrument is to use the sub scales of GHQ-28.

I would suggest that you consider the HADS. It is free to use (unlike the Beck Questionnaires which cost €2 per scale each time you administer them). The HADS provides brief measures of both anxiety & depression and in my study I found it to be more sensitive to change in group therapy (using ACT for anxiety) than the BAI. If your clients have co morbid physical illness or chronic pain, their elevated scores on the BAI may reflect these problems, as opposed to symptoms of depression or anxiety.

I recommend the PHQ-9. It is very short, can be answered in less than 5 minutes and covers both areas. It is excellent for initial screening of the general population. Others have posted links.

Best wishes.

Sharon

Would suggest the HADS ( Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ).

Beck Depression and Beck Anxiety Inventory is more suitable, easy to administered and scoring.

I have also used BDI and BAI as Sushma has, easy with facile interpretation. These are often used, valid and reliable instruments so you find a lot of literature to refer to.

Hi:

Grid-hamilton 21

I suggest this instrument because it is simple yet complete, the application is fast and is still available for free.

Dear Ahmad Alshayea, but are the patients in the hospital? (For use of the HADS.) I have never used this one before, can it be used in the general population? I'm more familiar with Beck, BDI and BAI but these are longer than the PHQ-9.

I recommend the PHQ9 and/or DASS. Both of these are psychometrically sound instruments, widely used, have very solid normative data, and they are both free (unlike the Beck measures).

Try DASS21. The Anx and Dep scales with 14 items can be answered in 5-7 minutes

Dear Sharon, Yes it does! respondent doesn't have to be mentally ill. HADS can be used in both general population and clinical settings. Although not without problems, i.e., dual latent structure for example.

A lot has been said, i only want to add that kindly consider the cultural, residential and educational background of sample before selecting tool.

I agree with Rajesh Verma

If you are studying depression and anxiety in the general population, the DASS-21 may be more appropriate. It has been translated and validated in several cultural settings.

In a general population, the DASS-21 is a great tool!

As for me I used GHQ-28 for screening and then the ADIS to precise the kind of disorders

Chorwe-Sungani, G., Chipps, J. A systematic review of screening instruments for depression for use in antenatal services in low resource settings. BMC Psychiatry 17, 112 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1273-7