Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40177610›Full record

ArticleClinical psychology in Europe2024

Assessing Diagnostic Precision: Adaptations of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-5/10/25) Among Tertiary-Level Students in Norway.

Børge Sivertsen, Jens C Skogen, Anne Reneflot, Marit Knapstad, Otto Robert Frans Smith, Leif Edvard Aarø, Benedicte Kirkøen, Bengt Oscar Lagerstrøm, Ann Kristin Skrindo Knudsen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical psychology in Europe, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

9 authors.

Børge SivertsenDepartment of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4654-9296
Jens C SkogenDepartment of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0722-5440
Anne ReneflotDepartment of Mental Health and Suicide, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0536-5271
Marit KnapstadDepartment of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0958-1596
Otto Robert Frans SmithDepartment of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6306-2239
Leif Edvard AarøDepartment of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5027-3611
Benedicte KirkøenCentre for Evaluation of Public Health Measures, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2641-5477
Bengt Oscar LagerstrømDepartment for Methodology and Data Collection, Statistics Norway, Oslo, Norway.
Ann Kristin Skrindo KnudsenDepartment of Disease Burden, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1218-798X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Universities worldwide are witnessing a surge in mental health problems among students, particularly in anxiety and depression. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) is a popular screening tool, but its reliability in identifying mental disorders remains debated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the criterion validity of the HSCL-25, HSCL-10, and HSCL-5 using 30-day prevalence of major depressive episode (MDE) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) from a self-administered electronic version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview, fifth version (CIDI 5.0), as the benchmark. Method: Data stem from a national survey targeting students in higher education in Norway. In a 2023 follow-up study on mental disorders, 5,568 participants completed both the HSCL-25 and the CIDI. Sex-specific optimal thresholds for all HSCL versions in relation to MDE and GAD (from CIDI) were determined using the Youden Index maximization. Results: The optimal cut-off values for detecting MDE or GAD with the HSCL-25 were 1.96 for males and 2.20 for females, displaying a good balance between sensitivity and specificity. Similar high and balanced sensitivity and specificity patterns were found for both the HSCL-10 and HSCL-5. However, all HSCL versions overestimated prevalence rates compared to the self-administered CIDI. Conclusions: All three HSCL versions showed high criterion validity. The data indicate that HSCL may be better as a screening tool than for precise estimation of MDE and GAD prevalence. For improved diagnostic accuracy, future HSCL versions should incorporate functional impairment assessment. This update would bring the HSCL into closer alignment with clinical diagnostic standards.

Indexed as

anxietydepressionpsychometricsquestionnairesstudentsyoung adults

Identifiers

PMID40177610
PMCPMC11960570

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.