Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27629535›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2016

The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) in the general population: scale structure, reliability, measurement invariance and normative data: a cross-sectional survey.

Berend Terluin, Niels Smits, Evelien P M Brouwers, Henrica C W de Vet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Cross-cultural validation of the German version of the Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) in multimorbid elderly people.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Berend TerluinDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine & EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. b.terluin@vumc.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8944-5238
Niels SmitsResearch Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Evelien P M BrouwersScientific Center for Care and Welfare (Tranzo), Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Henrica C W de VetDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire measuring distress, depression, anxiety and somatization with separate scales. The 4DSQ has extensively been validated in clinical samples, especially from primary care settings. Information about measurement properties and normative data in the general population was lacking. In a Dutch general population sample we examined the 4DSQ scales' structure, the scales' reliability and measurement invariance with respect to gender, age and education, the scales' score distributions across demographic categories, and normative data.

methods4DSQ data were collected in a representative Dutch Internet panel. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the scales' structure. Reliability was examined by Cronbach's alpha, and coefficients omega-total and omega-hierarchical. Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis was used to evaluate measurement invariance across gender, age and education.

resultsThe total response rate was 82.4 % (n = 5273/6399). The depression scale proved to be unidimensional. The other scales were best represented as bifactor models consisting of a large general factor and one or more smaller specific factors. The general factors accounted for more than 95 % of the reliable variance of the scales. Reliability was high (≥0.85) by all estimates. The distress-, depression- and anxiety scales were invariant across gender, age and education. The somatization scale demonstrated some lack of measurement invariance as a result of decreased thresholds for some of the items in young people (16-24 years) and increased thresholds in elderly people (65+ years). The somatization scale was invariant regarding gender and education. The 4DSQ scores varied significantly across demographic categories, but the explained variance was small (<6 %). Normative data were generated for gender and age categories. Approximately 17 % of the participants scored above average on de distress scale, whereas 12 % scored above average on de somatization scale. Percentages of people scoring high enough on depression or anxiety as to suspect the presence of depressive or anxiety disorder were 4.1 and 2.5 respectively.

conclusionsEvidence supports reliability and measurement invariance of the 4DSQ in the general Dutch population. The normative data provided in this study can be used to compare a subject's 4DSQ scores with a general population reference group.

Indexed as

Medically Unexplained SymptomsQuality of LifeAdolescentAdultAgedAnxietyAnxiety DisordersCross-Sectional StudiesDepressionDepressive DisorderFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsAnxietyBifactor modelConfirmatory factor analysisDepressionDifferential item functioningDistressMeasurement invarianceNormed reference dataSomatization

Identifiers

PMID27629535
PMCPMC5024427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.