Factor structure and reliability of the Italian adaptation of the Hypomania Check List-32, second revision (HCL-32-R2)

Fornaro, Michele; Berardis, Domenico De; Mazza, Monica; Pino, Maria Chiara; Favaretto, Ettore; Bedani, Fulvio; Wieser, Christian; Indelicato, Luisa; Paternò, Vito Fabio; Monaco, Francesca Lo; Dugo, Febronia; Ventriglio, Antonio; Mungo, S.; Selle, Valerio; Valchera, Alessandro; Elassy, Mai; Martinotti, Giovanni; Bartolomeis, Andrea de; Iasevoli, Felice; Tomasetti, Carmine; Avvisati, Livia; Tartaglione, Sergio; Perna, Giampaolo; Cattaneo, C; Consoli, G.; Romano, Anna; Debbio, Alessandro Del; Martino, Matteo; D’Angelo, Emanuela; Pasquale, Concetta De; Koshy, A; Angst, Jules

doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.03.001

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The optimal cut-off value between MDD and BD was 16; similarly, the optimal cut-off value between MDD and BD-I was also 16, while the optimal cut-off value between MDD and BD-II was 15. These cut-off values were slightly higher than those reported in a large transcultural study including 18 countries (Europe, North Africa, Near East, Far East), 13) an Italian study 23 , 26) and in studies from Russia 27) and China, 28) all of which used the HCL-32-R2, and furthermore in a Korean study using the HCL-32-R1. 14) At present, there is no obvious pattern (e.g., setting, sample, or cultural background) that would account for the variance in the optimal cut-off value.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

“…Factor analysis showed that the first three factors accounted for 43.26% of the variance. When forced two-factor solution was conducted according to previous reports, 23) four items were excluded and found to account for 36.36% of the variance. Although many previous reports have adapted a two-factor solution, we chose to use a three-factor solution retaining the whole 34 items in the present study because statistical tests (Kaiser’s criterion, scree test, and Horn’s parallel test) showed that three-factor solution had fewer unassigned items and clearer interpretation than two-factor solution ( Table 3 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychometric Properties of the Hypomania Checklist-32 in Korean Patients with Mood Disorders

Yoon

Angst

Bahk

et al. 2017

Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine the validity of the Korean version of the Hypomania Checklist-32, second revision (HCL-32-R2) in mood disorder patients.MethodsA total of 454 patients who diagnosed as mood disorder according to Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, clinician version (SCID-CV) (bipolar disorder [BD] I, n=190; BD-II, n=72; and major depressive disorder [MDD], n=192) completed the Korean module of the HCL-32-R2 (KHCL-32-R2).ResultsThe KHCL-32-R2 showed a three-factorial structure (eigenvalue >2) that accounted for 43.26% of the total variance. Factor 1 was labeled “active/elated” and included 16 items; factor 2, “irritable/distractible” and included 9 items; and factor 3 was labeled “risk-taking/indulging” and included 9 items. A score of 16 or more on the KHCL-32-R2 total scale score distinguished between BD and MDD, which yielded a sensitivity of 70% and a specificity of 70%. MDD and BD-II also could be differentiated at a cut-off of 15 with maximized sensitivity (0.67) and specificity (0.66). Cronbach’s alpha of KHCL-32-R2 and its subsets (factors 1, 2, and 3) were 0.91, 0.89, 0.81 and 0.79, respectively. Correlations between KHCL-32-R2 and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Young Mania Rating Scale and Korean version of Mood Disorder Questionnaire were −0.66 (p=0.41), −0.14 (p=0.9), and 0.61 (p<0.001), respectively.ConclusionThe KHCL-32-R2 may be a useful tool in distinguishing between bipolar and depressive patients in clinical settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 57%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric Properties of the Hypomania Checklist-32 in Korean Patients with Mood Disorders

Yoon

Angst

Bahk

et al. 2017

Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the HCL‐16, the optimal cutoff in distinguishing BD with MDD was 6 in the Chinese population, rather than 8 reported previously . The discrepancy in the cutoff values of the two short HCL versions across studies could be due to the different loadings of the HCL items across different populations . It should be noted that the HCL‐16 in the United Kingdom and the HCL‐20 in Demark selected different items and demonstrated different factor loadings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…14 The discrepancy in the cutoff values of the two short HCL versions across studies could be due to the different loadings of the HCL items across different populations. 8,27,28 It should be noted that the HCL-16 14 in the United Kingdom and the HCL-20 15 in Demark selected different items and demonstrated different factor loadings. Several factors could contribute to the discrepancy, including cross-cultural differences and different psychometric analyses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 The Chinese version of the HCL-32 has been validated in Chinese population 13 and its sum is computed by adding up all items scores. The HCL-20 is a short version of the HCL-32 that derives 20 items from the HCL-32 (items 1,2,4,5,7,8,9,10,11,15,18,20,21,23,25,27,28,29,31, and 32), 15 whereas HCL-16 is a short version that derives 16 items from HCL-32 (items 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, 27, 28, 30, 31, and 32). 14 The MDQ is a 13 "yes/no" items self-reported scale for screening hypomania or mania 7 and the MDQ Chinese version has satisfactory psychometric properties.…”

Section: Instruments and Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing two short versions of the 32‐item Hypomania Checklist (HCL‐32) for patients with bipolar disorder

Wang

Feng

Wang

et al. 2018

Perspect Psychiatr Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) between Hypomania Checklist‐20 (HCL‐20) and HCL‐16. Design and Methods Altogether, 350 subjects with bipolar disorders (BD) or major depressive disorders (MDD) were included. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and area under the curve between the HCL‐20 and the HCL‐16 for BD and its subtypes were compared. Findings The HCL‐16 demonstrated superior performance in terms of sensitivity + specificity than HCL‐20. For discriminating BD and BD‐I patients from MDD patients, HCL‐16 showed better sensitivity than HCL‐20, while HCL‐20 showed better specificity than HCL‐16. Practice Implications Our results showed that both HCL‐20 and HCL‐16 have a fair screening ability, but HCL‐16 showed a relatively superior performance considering its length.

show abstract

“Novel Psychopharmacology for Depressive Disorders”

Fornaro

Berardis

Anastasia

et al. 2021

Major Depressive Disorder

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factor structure and reliability of the Italian adaptation of the Hypomania Check List-32, second revision (HCL-32-R2)

Cited by 14 publications

References 49 publications

Psychometric Properties of the Hypomania Checklist-32 in Korean Patients with Mood Disorders

Psychometric Properties of the Hypomania Checklist-32 in Korean Patients with Mood Disorders

Comparing two short versions of the 32‐item Hypomania Checklist (HCL‐32) for patients with bipolar disorder

“Novel Psychopharmacology for Depressive Disorders”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About