RE: DQ #1: The BDI Tests & The BAI

Description

Venesa W

The Beck Anxiety Inventory also known as the (BAI), is a clinical assessment that clinicians utilize to monitor the severity of various anxiety disorders amongst clients (Muntingh et al, 2011). The BAI is a self-reported anxiety scale that it vastly in clinical practice to measure anxiety (Better help,2022). BAI is used to measure Anxiety orders that are assessed includes social phobia, panic disorder, agoraphobia, depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorders (Muntingh et al, 2011). The scale can measure the severity in adolescents and adults, it consists of 21 questions that participants answer (Better help, 2022). This assessment was developed by Dr. Aaron Beck in 1988 to examine the anxiety and depression (Better help, 2022). The scoring method that is used for the BAI is participants circle there answer of 0-3 and circling the severity level that they identify with (Better help,2022). Once participants answer all the questions clinician’s tally the score, and the higher the score dictates the severity level of anxiety (Better Help,2022). The Beck Depression Inventory also known as the (BDI) (Yuan-Pang Wang, & Gorenstein,2013). The validity and reliability of this self-reported test is high with the measures of depression and anxiety levels that are self-reported from participants (Yuan-Pang Wang, & Gorenstein,2013).

As a future clinician this writer would utilize this assessment on her clients. This writer finds these inventories simply to utilize and explain to her clients. In addition, this assessment is not time consuming, and it will be useful in understanding the severity level of her client’s anxiety or depression level, in order to formulate a treatment plan.

Reference

Muntingh, A. D., van der Feltz-Cornelis, C. M., van Marwijk, H. W., Spinhoven, P., Penninx, B. W., & van Balkom, A. J. (2011). Is the Beck Anxiety Inventory a good tool to assess the severity of anxiety? A primary care study in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA). BMC family practice, 12, 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-12-66

The Better Help Editorial Team (2022). The Beck Anxiety Inventory & Ho It Works. Retrieved from : https://www.betterhelp.com/advice/anxiety/what-is-the-beck-anxiety-inventory-and-how-does-it-work/

Yuan-Pang Wang, & Gorenstein, C. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory-II: a comprehensive review. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 35(4), 416–431. https://doi-org.postu.idm.oclc.org/10.1590/1516-44…

Arlette R

RE: DQ #1: The BDI Tests & The BAI

Professor and class,

The Beck depression inventory is a 21 item measure that is one of the most popular measures for tracking symptoms of depression(Wang & Gorenstein,2013). At the time of this 2013 peer reviewed article, there had been over 7,000 studies for validity and then this assessment was updated into a version two in 1996. Originally the BDI utilized a specific theory of depression that it was seeking, in the updated AI version wasn’t as sensitive and by the time the BDI-II was updated it didn’t focus on any one theory of what depression is. This allowed it to be more utilitarian to the measure of depression. The Beck Anxiety inventory is also 21 items and is a very common assessment used for diagnosing anxiety in individuals(Osorio et al.,2011). The BAI is harder to validate in subsequent studies after the original. But it has been shown to have better results with a four factor understanding vs the more traditional two.

Both of these assessments are self-administered one of the criticisms is that there is overlap in the symptoms for BDI and BAI assessments but depression and anxiety have a high comorbidity rate and share common symptoms(Stultz & Crits-Christophs,2010). These assessments did help with the differentiation process of the two disorders but not by much. While there are distinct symptoms for both these disorders the similarities can make it hard for a clinician to decipher if it is anxiety or depression or both. Both of these assessments are in use because their validity is good but the depressive assessment has better results and higher validity than the anxiety version which could not recreate the test results(Wang & Gorenstein,2013). The BAI original study found the validity to be .92 test-retest reliability and in one week the reliability went down to 0.75 which while adequate is not as reliable as researchers would want in terms of precision in classifying something that changes with the emotional state of clients(Osario et.al.,2011). It is not an exact science but the validity is a way that they can get as close to it as possible. These assessments would definitely be helpful in my practice since it can be used as a benchmark to see how client reported symptoms change over time. During therapy new coping mechanisms are given and maybe the client chooses meds either way, it is a great way to see how anxiety and depression symptoms can change over time. Another reason why this is helpful is that maybe clients have a hard time verbalizing these feelings but an assessment that directly asks them could knock them out of the pattern long enough to see it from a higher perspective and acknowledge something that is such a part of their lives that they have stopped quantifying it. They just learned to survive around the boulder of this emotional issue, modifying their lives for it. Therapy is a great first step but “knowing the problem is half the solution as said by Charles Kettering. So these assessments can bring awareness to clients about what they are facing and it can be used as a diagnostic tool to see how it evolves and hopefully lessens in severity over time.

References:

Osario, F. (2011). Further psychometric study of the Beck Anxiety Inventory including factorial analysis and social anxiety disorder screening. Informa Healthcare. https://post.blackboard.com/bbcswebdav/pid-38470269-dt-message-rid-74564538_1/xid-74564538_1

Stulz, N., & Crits-Christoph, P. (2010). Distinguishing anxiety and depression in self-report: Purification of the Beck Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory-II. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 66(9), 927–940.

Yuan-Pang Wang, & Gorenstein, C. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory-II: a comprehensive review. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 35(4), 416–431. https://doi-org.postu.idm.oclc.org/10.1590/1516-4446-2012-1048

Venesa W

RE: DQ #2: SCL-90-R

The SCL-90-R is a self-reporting 90 item inventory, and it was first developed by Leonard Derogatis in the year 1975 (Derogatis,2000). This inventory aim is to measure psychological symptoms of distress (Derogatis,2000). The SCL-90 R utilizes psychological tools such as the Brief Symptom Inventory, which is 53 item scale in which both scales are designed for adolescents starting at the age of 13 years old and adults (Derogatis,2000). The SCL-90 R has a high reliability and validity as clients are self-reporting there symptoms, and in a comprehensive series that measures validations displayed an high sensitivity in clinical reports for psychotherapeutic outcomes (Derogatis,2000). The 90-item checklist is designed to measure mental health disorders based on the symptoms that are self-reported, and this assessment is used in a clinical inpatient and outpatient setting (Grande et al,2014). The assessment measures nine distinct dimensions to evaluate what mental concerns an individual may have (Grande et, al, 2000). The SCL-R 90R is similar to the MMPI-2R and the MCM-III because both consists of self-reporting that depends on the participant to self-report what they are experiencing, and both tests consist of personality test (. Groth,2009). The SCL-R measures the severity of the self-reported symptoms to evaluate in contrast to the MMPI-2R and MCM-III (Groth,2009) The SCL- 90-R also measures the clients outcome overtime to view signs of improvement in distress and is a shorter questionnaire. (Derogatis,2000).

Reference

Derogatis, L. R. (2000). SCL-90-R. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology, Vol. 7. (pp. 192–193). Oxford University Press. https://doi-org.postu.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/10522-079

Grande, T. L., Newmeyer, M. D., Underwood, L. A., & Williams, C. R., III. (2014). Path analysis of the SCL-90-R: Exploring use in outpatient assessment. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(4), 271–290. https://doi-org.postu.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0748175614538061

Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. 5th ed.

Krista M

RE: DQ #2: SCL-90-R

The impression of the SCL-90-R is that this testing measure was developed for clinical use and focused on expanding the scope of psychopathology. The development of the SCL-90-R pursued the challenge of providing a self-reporting method that measured the severity of distress while capturing subjective dimensions (Derogatis, 2000). To achieve such measures, the SCL test presents multiple components representing a unique set of multidimensional psychological test instruments for the assessment of psychological symptoms and severity of distress (Derogatis & Savitz). The test is a well-established assessment method for clinically significant changes in stress and distress levels to determine treatment effectiveness (Schauenburg & Strack, 1999).

The SCL-90-R has 90 self-reported items formatted using a 5-point Likert scale response with scores of 0 indicating low symptomology and 5 indicating severity. Similar to the MCMI-III, the SCL inventories apply global measures as opposed to system measures to account for the severity of distress symptoms and to measure clinical progress when reassessing during treatment (Karterud et al., 1995). The 90 items within the SCL-90 reflect the primary symptom dimension subscales which are Interpersonal Sensitivity, Hostility, Paranoid Ideation, Psychoticism, Obsessive-Compulsive, Phobic Anxiety, Somatization, Depression, and Anxiety. The global measures of the SCL-90-R include the Global Severity Index (GSI), the Positive Symptom Distress Index (PSDI), and the Positive Symptom Total (PST) (Derogatis, 2000). SCL-90-R subscales are all highly intercorrelated and the GSI scale is used to score all primary subscale dimensions creating the GSI score as the sum of all dimensions divided by the number of inventory items or 90 (Schauenburg & Strack, 1999). Positive Symptom Total (PST) is a reliability and validity measure to account for the number of self-reported symptoms. The PSDI index allows for reliability and validity within the three primary subscales identified in the SCL-90-R that are linked to diagnosis criteria of personality disorders and core pathology features in personality theories (Karterud et al., 1995)

All standardized test measures rely on normative data to be deemed reliable and analyzed for validity measures. Normative data reflects scores derived from large-scale studies on the population for whom the measure is designed. The SCL test has four sets of empirically verified data sets to compare individual test scores. The four normative sets are reflective of the reliability of the testing situation and environment. The four sets of normative data include two sets specific to psychological populations in inpatient and outpatient care (Derogatis, 2000). This is a relevant feature of the SCL inventories as a human service professional. Scores can be compared with and plotted to allow for a comparison of an individual’s test results and the inpatient or outpatient set of norms.

The SCL-90 offers different versions including a brief inventory. The different formats have been empirically studied with large samples to compare convergent and divergent features of the SCL inventories and the MMPI. The results concluded convergent-discriminant validation (Derogatis, 2000). The SCL-90 has been studied and analyzed across multiple clinical contexts and populations and the results are consistent in agreement with the test’s ability to measure psychological distress (Schauenburg & Strack, 1999). This test has a long-established reputation in clinical use for populations with mental health issues and this writer enjoyed learning about this testing method.

Derogatis, L. R., & Savitz, K. L. (2000). The SCL–90–R and Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) in primary care. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), Handbook of psychological assessment in primary care settings (pp. 297–334). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Derogatis, L. R. (2000). SCL-90-R. In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology, Vol. 7. (pp. 192–193). Oxford University Press. https://doi-org.postu.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/10522-0…

Karterud, S., Friis, S., Irion, T., Mehlum, L., Vaglum, P., & Vaglum, S. (1995). A SCL-90-R Derived Index of the Severity of Personality Disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 9(2), 112-123. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1995.9.2.112

Schauenburg, H., & Strack, M. (1999). Measuring psychotherapeutic change with the symptom checklist SCL 90 R. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 68(4), 199-206. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/measur…

Grid View

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Main Posting	45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed. Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.	0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria. Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness	10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3.	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3.
First Response	17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response	16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Participation	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100