Multidimensional emotional disorders inventory: Reliability and validity in a Spanish clinical sample.

BACKGROUND: The categorical approach to diagnosing mental disorders has been criticized for a number of reasons (e.g., high rates of comorbidity; larger number of diagnostic categories and combination). Diverse alternatives have been proposed using a hybrid or totally dimensional perspective. Despite the evidence supporting use of the Multidimensional Emotional Disorders Inventory (MEDI) for assessing the transdiagnostic dimensions of Emotional Disorders using a dimensional-categorical hybrid approach, no data exist on Spanish clinical samples. The present study explores the validity and reliability of the 49-item MEDI in a clinical sample and provides data for its use. METHODS: A total of 280 outpatients with emotional disorders attended in different Spanish public Mental Health Units in Spain filled out all questionnaires during the assessment phase and the MEDI again one week after. The instruments used evaluate four main constructs: personality, mood, anxiety and avoidance. RESULTS: The nine original factors were confirmed and showed adequate reliability (α: 0.66-0.91) and stability (r = 0.76-0.87). No differences in mean scores by sex were presented in any subscale (p ≥ .07). The MEDI subscales correlated significantly with the scales of each of the selected constructs (0.45 < r < 0.76). LIMITATIONS: The main limitations of this study were the limited sample size and not being able to count on MEDI scores post-transdiagnostic intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The MEDI demonstrates adequate reliability and validity. It allows to assess diverse symptoms efficiently, thus being of interest for clinical studies and practice.

Psychometric properties and validation of the Spanish versions of the overall anxiety and depression severity and impairment scales.

BACKGROUND: Anxiety and depressive disorders are the most frequent disorders for which patients seek care in public health settings in Spain. This study aimed at validating the Overall Anxiety Severity and Impairment Scale (OASIS) and the Overall Depression Severity and Impairment Scale (ODSIS), which are brief screening scales for anxiety and depression consisting of only five items each. METHODS: The study was conducted in a Spanish clinical sample receiving outpatient mental health treatment (N = 339). A subsample of participants (n = 219) was assessed before and after receiving a course of cognitive-behavioral treatment. RESULTS: The results revealed excellent internal consistency estimates (Cronbach's alpha for the OASIS and the ODSIS was 0.87 and 0.94, respectively), along with promising convergent and discriminant validity and test-criterion relationships (i.e., moderate correlation with other measures of depression and anxiety, as well as with neuroticism, quality of life, adjustment, and negative affect). A one-dimensional structure was obtained for the OASIS and the ODSIS. The ROC analyses indicated an area under the curve of 0.83 for the OASIS and the ODSIS when predicting moderate-to-severe anxiety and depression, respectively. Good sensitivity to therapeutic change was also evidence and the analysis of the sensitivity as a function of 1-specificity area suggested a cutoff value of 10 for both scales. LIMITATIONS: Inter-rater reliability of diagnoses with the ADIS-IV interview could not be investigated and the results obtained may not be generalizable to other samples and health settings. CONCLUSIONS: The availability of these two short and psychometrically sound measures should make screening of anxiety and depressive symptoms in routine care more feasible.