ArticleChild and adolescent psychiatry and mental health2021
Psychometric properties of the Thai Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) for adolescent depression.
Article in Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Contribution of Emotion Dynamics to Adolescent Psychosocial Well-Being: Protocol for a Longitudinal Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire: a cross-cultural study among Thai and British adolescents.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2024Article
- Psychometric properties of the Sindhi version of the Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) in a sample of early adolescents living in rural Pakistan.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) is a widely used screening tool for child and adolescence depression but has not been validated with young people in Thailand. This study aimed to assess the reliability and validity and to determine the optimal clinical cut-off of the Thai MFQ.
methodsThe Thai MFQ was evaluated in two parts. In part 1, The MFQ was translated and back translated into the Thai language and piloted on a small number of Thai adolescents. Then 1275 young people aged 12-18 years from three secondary schools in Thailand completed the MFQ and related measures of depression. In part 2, 138 students were invited to take part in a structured diagnostic interview (the Thai translation of the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children -Present and Lifetime Version (the K-SADS-PL). Of those, 103 students were interviewed and completed the Thai MFQ a second time to assess test-retest reliability. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) analyses were conducted to evaluate diagnosis accuracy and examine the optimal cut-off score of the Thai MFQ.
resultsThe Thai MFQ had excellent internal consistency (α = 0.92) and good to moderate test-retest reliability in 2-week and 4-week intervals. The Thai MFQ also had good convergent validity with related measures of depression. The ROC analyses demonstrated that the Thai MFQ also had excellent accuracy distinguishing between depressed and non-depressed adolescents [AUC = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]. A total score of 28 on the Thai MFQ was the optimal cut-off score (sensitivity was 0.97 and specificity was 0.83). DISCUSSION: The Thai MFQ demonstrated excellent psychometric properties and accurately distinguished between depressed and non-depressed adolescents. It is appropriate to use as a screening measure to identify adolescents with depression in community settings in Thailand.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.