Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Assessment Research Tool (DART) Screener for DSM-5 Disorders

  • Published:
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The primary objective of the study was to determine the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy, as well as positive predictive validity and negative predictive validity of the Diagnostic Assessment Research Tool (DART) Screener, a self-report screening questionnaire for identifying possible DSM-5 disorders. The design of the screening tool allows it to be used as a standalone measure or in conjunction with the DART Interview, a semistructured diagnostic interview for assessing DSM-5 disorders. Participants included a sample of treatment-seeking individuals (N = 562) who presented at an outpatient anxiety disorder clinic for an intake assessment. The DART Screener was administered prior to the DART Interview. Overall, the DART Screener achieved high sensitivity and low to moderate specificity across the separate items. In addition, the DART Screener demonstrated high negative predictive validity and low to moderate positive predictive validity. The high sensitivity and low false negative rate of the DART Screener suggest that it is a helpful tool that can be used effectively as a stand-alone screening measure or to identify relevant DSM-5 disorders to assess via semistructured or clinical diagnostic interviews.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability (data transparency)

Data is available upon request from corresponding author.

Code Availability (software application or custom code)

Not applicable.

References

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013a). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013b). DSM-5 Self Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure - Adult. Author

  • Basco, M. R., Bostic, J. Q., Davies, D., Rush, A. J., Witte, B., Hendrickse, W., & Barnett, V. (2000). Methods to improve diagnostic accuracy in a community mental health setting. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(10), 1599–1605. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.10.1599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bastiaens, L., & Galus, J. (2018). The DSM-5 self-rated level 1 cross-cutting symptom measure as a screening tool. Psychiatric Quarterly, 89(1), 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11126-017-9518-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Connor, K. M., Kobak, K. A., Churchill, L. E., Katzelnick, D., & Davidson, J. R. (2001). Mini-SPIN: A brief screening assessment for Generalized Social Anxiety Disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 14(2), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.1055|

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Donker, T., van Straten, A., Marks, I. M., & Cuijpers, P. (2009). A brief Web-based screening questionnaire for common mental disorders: development and validation. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 11(3), e19. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1134

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Elwood, R. W. (1993). Psychological tests and clinical discriminations: Beginning to address the base rate problem. Clinical Psychology Review, 13(5), 409–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(93)90012-B

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • First, M. B., Williams, J. B. W., Karg, R. S., & Spitzer, R. L. (2015). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5—Research Version (SCID-5 for DSM-5, Research Version; SCID-5-RV). American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen-Doss, A., & Hawley, K. M. (2010). Understanding barriers to evidence-based assessment: Clinician attitudes toward standardized assessment tools. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 39(6), 885–896. https://doi.org/10.1080/15374416.2010.517169

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lavigne, J. V., Feldman, J., & Meyes, K. M. (2016). Screening for mental health problems: Addressing the base rate fallacy for a sustainable screening program in integrated primary care. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 41(10), 1081–1090. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsw048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maxim, L. D., Niebo, R., & Utell, M. J. (2014). Screening tests: a review with examples. Inhalation toxicology, 26(13), 811–828. https://doi.org/10.3109/08958378.2014.955932

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, R.E., Milosevic, I., Rowa, K., Shnaider, P., Pawluk, E.J., Antony, M.M. & the DART Working Group. (2017). Diagnostic Assessment Research Tool (DART). St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton/McMaster University.

  • Meehl, P. E., & Rosen, A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin,52(3), 194–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meinzen-Derr, J., Smith, L., Buschbacher, R., Hammond, F., Malec, J., & Nick, T. (2014). Validity and performance of screening: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. In F. Hammond, J. Malec, T. Nick, &, R. Buschbacker (Eds.), Handbook of clinical research: Design, statistics, and implementation (pp. 196-199). Demos Medical Publishing.

  • Nath, S., Ryan, E. G., Trevillion, K., Bick, D., Demilew, J., Milgrom, J., Pickles, A., & Howard, L. (2018). Prevalence and identification of anxiety disorders in pregnancy: The diagnostic accuracy of the two-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-2). BMJ Open, 8(9), e023766. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023766

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, L. H., Pawluk, E. J., Milosevic, I., Shnaider, P., Rowa, K., Antony, M. M., Musielak, N., & McCabe, R. E. (2021). The Diagnostic Assessment Research Tool (DART) in action: A preliminary evaluation of a semistructured diagnostic interview for DSM-5 disorders [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Anxiety Treatment and Research Clinic, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton.

  • Plummer, F., Manea, L., Trepel, D., & McMillan, D. (2016). Screening for anxiety disorders with the GAD-7 and GAD-2: A systematic review and diagnostic metaanalysis. General Hospital Psychiatry, 39, 24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2015.11.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seo, J., & Park, S. (2015). Validation of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and GAD-2 in patients with migraine. Journal of Headache and Pain, 16(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-015-0583-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smetanin, P., Stiff, D., Briante, C., Adair, C., Ahmad, S. & Khan, M. (2011). The life and economic impact of major mental illnesses in Canada: 2011 to 2041. RiskAnalytica, on behalf of the Mental Health Commission of Canada.

  • Tilli, V., Suominen, K., & Karlsson, H. (2013). The Autonomic Nervous System Questionnaire and the Brief Patient Health Questionnaire as screening instruments for panic disorder in Finnish primary care. European Psychiatry, 28(7), 442–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2012.03.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, C.V., & Bufka, L.F. (2020). Brief measures for screening and measuring mental health outcomes. In M. M. Antony & D. H. Barlow (Eds.), Handbook of assessment and treatment planning for psychological disorders (3rd ed., pp. 24-39). Guilford Press.

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant number: 165929).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anxiety Treatment and Research Clinic, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, 100 West 5th St, Hamilton, ON, L8N 3K7, Canada

    Elizabeth J. Pawluk, Natalia Musielak, Irena Milosevic, Karen Rowa, Philippe Shnaider, Luke H. Schneider & Randi E. McCabe

  2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Elizabeth J. Pawluk, Irena Milosevic, Karen Rowa, Philippe Shnaider, Martin M. Antony & Randi E. McCabe

  3. Department of Psychology, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Martin M. Antony

Authors
  1. Elizabeth J. Pawluk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natalia Musielak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Irena Milosevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Karen Rowa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Philippe Shnaider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Luke H. Schneider
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin M. Antony
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Randi E. McCabe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth J. Pawluk.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

Elizabeth Pawluk, Irena Milosevic, Karen Rowa, Philippe Shnaider, Martin Antony and Randi McCabe are authors of the DART Screener and DART Interview but have no associated financial conflicts of interests to declare. Natalia Musielak and Luke Schneider have no conflict of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pawluk, E.J., Musielak, N., Milosevic, I. et al. An Evaluation of the Diagnostic Assessment Research Tool (DART) Screener for DSM-5 Disorders. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 44, 1169–1176 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-021-09895-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-021-09895-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation