Validity of the mood disorder questionnaire in a Brazilian psychiatric population

9Citations
Citations of this article
47Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: Bipolar spectrum disorders are prevalent and frequently underdiagnosed and undertreated. This report describes the development and validation of the Brazilian version of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire, a screening instrument for bipolar spectrum disorders, in an adult psychiatric population. Method: A total of 114 consecutive patients attending an outpatient psychiatric clinic completed the Brazilian version of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire. A research psychiatrist, blind to the Mood Disorder Questionnaire results, interviewed patients by means of the mood module of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV ('gold standard'). Results: The internal consistency of the Brazilian Mood Disorder Questionnaire, evaluated with Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.76 (95% CI; 0.69-0.92). Principal component analysis with varimax rotation indicated an 'irritability-racing thoughts' factor and 'energized-activity' factor, which explained 39.1% of variance. On the basis of the SCID, 69 (60.5%) individuals received a diagnosis of bipolar disorders. A Brazilian Mood Disorder Questionnaire screening score of 8 or more items yielded sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI; 0.85-0.98), specificity of 0.70 (95% CI; 0.62-0.75), a positive predictive value of 0.82 (95% CI; 0.75-0.88) and a negative predictive value of 0.84 (95% CI; 0.77-0.90). Conclusion: The present data demonstrate that the Brazilian Mood Disorder Questionnaire is a valid instrument for the screening of bipolar disorders. The instrument needs to be validated in other settings (e.g., in general practice).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Castelo, M. S., Carvalho, E. R., Gerhard, E. S., Costa, C. M. C., Ferreira, E. D., & Carvalho, A. F. (2010). Validity of the mood disorder questionnaire in a Brazilian psychiatric population. Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, 32(4), 424–428. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-44462010005000024

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free