[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.239.150.22. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
1.
Endicott  JSpitzer  RLFleiss  JLCohen  J The Global Assessment Scale: a procedure for measuring overall severity of psychiatric disorders.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1976;33766- 771Google ScholarCrossref
2.
Kessler  RCBerglund  PAWalters  EELeaf  PJKouzis  ACBruce  MLFriedman  RMGrosser  RCKennedy  CKuehnel  TGLaska  EMManderscheid  RWNarrow  WERosenheck  RASchneier  M Population-based analyses: a methodology for estimating the 12-month prevalence of Serious Mental Illness. Manderscheid  RWHenderson  MJeds Mental Health, United States, 1998. Rockville, Md Center for Mental HealthServices1999;99- 109Google Scholar
3.
Schaible  WLed Indirect Estimators in US Federal Programs.  New York, NY Springer1996;
4.
Kessler  RCAndrews  GMroczek  DÜstün  TBWittchen  H-U The World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short-Form (CIDI-SF).  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 1998;7171- 185Google ScholarCrossref
5.
Kessler  RCMcGonagle  KAZhao  SNelson  CBHughes  MEshleman  SWittchen  H-UKendler  KS Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;518- 19Google ScholarCrossref
6.
Kendler  KSGallagher  TJAbelson  JMKessler  RC Lifetime prevalence, demographic risk factors, and diagnostic validity of nonaffective psychosis as assessed in a US community sample: the National Comorbidity Survey.  Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996;531022- 1031Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Kessler  RCAndrews  GColpe  LJHiripi  EMroczek  DKNormand  S-LTWalters  EEZaslavsky  A Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in nonspecific psychological distress.  Psychol Med. 2002;32959- 976Google ScholarCrossref
8.
Link  BGDohrenwend  BP Formulation of hypotheses about the true relevance of demoralization in the United States. Dohrenwend  BPDohrenwend  BSGould  MSLink  BNeugebauer  RWunsch-Hitzig  Reds Mental Illness in the United States: Epidemiological Estimates New York Praeger Publishers1980;114- 132Google Scholar
9.
van der Linden  WJHambleton  RK Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory.  New York Springer1997;
10.
Furukawa  TAAndrews  GSlade  TKessler  RC The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being.  Psychol Med. In press.Google Scholar
11.
Rehm  JÜstün  TBSaxena  SNelson  CBChatterji  SIvis  FAdlaf  E On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population.  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 1999;8110- 123Google ScholarCrossref
12.
World Health Organization, International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. 2nd Geneva, Switzerland World Health Organization2001;
13.
Epstein  JBarker  PKroutil  L Mode effects in mental health self reports.  Public Opin Q. 2001;65529- 549Google ScholarCrossref
14.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies, Development of Computer-Assisted Interviewing Procedures for the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse [report online].  March2001;Available at:http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/nhsda/compassistinterview/toc.htmApril 2002 OAS Methodology Series. Google Scholar
15.
Turner  CFKu  LRogers  SMLindberg  LDPleck  JHSonenstein  FL Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence: increased reporting with computer survey technology.  Science. 1998;280867- 873Google ScholarCrossref
16.
First  MBSpitzer  RLGibbon  MWilliams  JBW Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Non-patient Edition (SCID-I/NP).  New York Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute1997;
17.
Hanley  JMcNeil  B The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.  Radiology. 1982;1432936Google Scholar
18.
SAS Institute Inc, SAS User's Guide, Version 8.  Carey, NC SAS Institute Inc1999;
19.
Tondo  LBurrai  CScamonatti  LWeissenburger  JRush  J Comparison between clinician-rated and self-reported depressive symptoms in Italian psychiatric patients.  Neuropsychobiology. 1988;191- 5Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Kobak  KAGreist  JHJefferson  JWMundt  JCKatzelnick  DJ Computerized assessment of depression and anxiety over the telephone using interactive voice response.  MD Comput. 1999;1664- 68Google Scholar
21.
Peirce  JCCornell  RG Integrating stratum-specific likelihood ratios with the analysis of ROC curves.  Med Decis Making. 1993;13141- 151Google ScholarCrossref
22.
Kessler  RCÜstün  TB The World Health Organization World Mental Health 2000 Initiative.  Hospital Management International. 2000;195- 196Google Scholar
Original Article
February 2003

Screening for Serious Mental Illness in the General Population

Author Affiliations

From the Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School (Drs Kessler, Howes, Normand, and Zaslavsky and Mss Hiripi and Walters), and the Department of Biostatistics, Harvard School of Public Health (Dr Normand), Boston, Mass; the Office of Applied Studies (Mss Barker and Epstein and Mr Gfroerer) and the Division of State and Community Systems Development (Dr Manderscheid), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Rockville, Md; and the Division of Mental Disorders, Behavioral Research, and AIDS, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Md (Dr Colpe).

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184-189. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184
Abstract

Background  Public Law 102-321 established a block grant for adults with "serious mental illness" (SMI) and required the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to develop a method to estimate the prevalence of SMI.

Methods  Three SMI screening scales were developed for possible use in the SAMHSA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short-Form (CIDI-SF) scale, the K10/K6 nonspecific distress scales, and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO-DAS). An enriched convenience sample of 155 respondents was administered all screening scales followed by the 12-month Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). We defined SMI as any 12-month DSM-IV disorder, other than a substance use disorder, with a GAF score of less than 60.

Results  All screening scales were significantly related to SMI. However, neither the CIDI-SF nor the WHO-DAS improved prediction significantly over the K10 or K6 scales. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of SMI was 0.854 for K10 and 0.865 for K6. The most efficient screening scale, K6, had a sensitivity (SE) of 0.36 (0.08) and a specificity of 0.96 (0.02) in predicting SMI.

Conclusions  The brevity and accuracy of the K6 and K10 scales make them attractive screens for SMI. Routine inclusion of either scale in clinical studies would create an important, and heretofore missing, crosswalk between community and clinical epidemiology.

×