Panic Disorder Severity Scale: Reliability and validity of the Turkish version

Abstract

We assessed the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the seven-item Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS). We recruited 174 subjects, including 104 with current DSM-IV panic disorder with (n=76) or without(n=28)agoraphobia, 14 with a major depressive episode, 24 with a non-panic anxiety disorder, and 32 healthy controls. Assessment instruments were Panic Disorder Severity Scale, Panic and Agoraphobia Scale, both the observer-rated (P&Ao) and self-rating (P& Asr); Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI); Hamilton Anxiety Scale, and Beck Depression Inventory. We repeated the measures for a group of panic disorder patients (n = 51) after 4 weeks to assess test-retest reliability. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of the PDSS was .92-94. The inter-rater correlation coefficient was .79. The test-retest correlation coefficient after 4 weeks was .63. In discriminant validity analyses, the highest correlation for PDSS was with P&Ao, P&Asr (r=.87 and.87, respectively) and CGI (r=.76) and the lowest with Beck Depression Inventory (r=.29). The cut-off point was six/seven, associated with high sensitivity (99%) and specificity (98%). This study confirmed the objectivity, reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the PDSS.

Korean panic disorder severity scale: construct validity by confirmatory factor analysis

“…Model 2 of this investigation was predicated on the studies of Kim [2001], Monkul et al [2004], and Shear et al [2001], all of whom determined that the PDSS consists of two correlated factors, with the first two items loading on the first factor (panic attack factor, focuses on physical symptoms), and the other five items loading on the second factor (symptoms and signs secondary to panic).…”

“…Also, the psychometric properties of the non-English versions and the cross-cultural validity of the PDSS have been addressed in several studies [Kim, 2001;Monkul et al, 2004;Yamamoto et al, 2004]. In these studies, the PDSS evidenced adequate test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and good discriminant, concurrent, and criterion-related validities.…”

“…Two studies involving confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) techniques [Shear et al, 1997[Shear et al, , 2001] and three studies using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) techniques [Kim, 2001;Monkul et al, 2004;Yamamoto et al, 2004] have attempted to clarify the factor structure of the PDSS. Three of these reports [Kim, 2001;Monkul et al, 2004;Shear et al, 1997] concluded that the PDSS is most properly viewed as a two-factor measure, but the other two studies [Shear et al, 2001;Yamamoto et al, 2004] asserted that the single-factor model evidences better fit indices than did the two-factor model.…”

“…Three of these reports [Kim, 2001;Monkul et al, 2004;Shear et al, 1997] concluded that the PDSS is most properly viewed as a two-factor measure, but the other two studies [Shear et al, 2001;Yamamoto et al, 2004] asserted that the single-factor model evidences better fit indices than did the two-factor model. Essentially, the results of both EFA and CFA have been discrepant.…”

Brazilian Medical Association guidelines for the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of panic disorder

“…This scale has better diagnostic capacity for patients with agoraphobia, a sensitivity of 99%, and a specificity of 98%, yielding a LR+ of , increasing the diagnostic certainty from 5% (prevalence/ pretest probability) to 72%. 12 For patients without agoraphobia, the PDSS has low diagnostic power, with a sensitivity of 83.3% and a specificity of 64%, yielding a LR+ of 2.31 (95%CI 1.75-3.04) and increasing the diagnostic probability to only 11% 13 (A). The Panic Associated Symptoms Scale (PASS) measures the severity of the following core symptoms of PD: panic attacks, anticipatory anxiety, and agoraphobia.…”