Advertisement

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 105–115 | Cite as

Validation of the 4DSQ Somatization Subscale in the Occupational Health Care Setting as a Screener

  • Lars de Vroege
  • Wilco H. M. Emons
  • Klaas Sijtsma
  • Rob Hoedeman
  • Christina M. van der Feltz-Cornelis
Article

Abstract

Purpose Somatoform disorders (physical symptoms without medical explanation that cause dysfunction) are prevalent in the occupational health (OH) care setting and are associated with functional impairment and absenteeism. Availability of psychometric instruments aimed at assessing somatoform disorders is limited. In the OH setting, so far only the Patient-Health-Questionnaire 15 has been validated as screener for somatoform disorder, and has been shown to have moderate validity. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is frequently used in the OH setting but the Somatization subscale is not validated yet. The aim of this study is to validate the 4DSQ Somatization subscale as screener for DSM-IV somatoform disorder in the OH setting by using the MINI interview as gold standard. Methods Employees absent from work due to physical symptoms, for a period longer than 6 weeks and shorter than 2 years, were asked to participate in this study. They filled out the 4DSQ and underwent a MINI interview by telephone for DSM-IV classification. Specificity and sensitivity scores were calculated for all possible cut-off scores and a receiver operator curve was computed for the Somatization subscale. 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CIs) were calculated for sensitivity and specificity. Results The Somatization subscale of the 4DSQ has an optimal cut point of 9, with specificity and sensitivity equal to 64.3 % [95 % CI (53.6; 73.7 %)] and 60.9 % [95 % CI (40.8; 77.8 %)], respectively. Receiver operator curves showed an area under the curve equal to 0.61 [SE = 0.07; 95 % CI (0.48; 0.75)] for the Somatization subscale of the 4DSQ. Conclusion The 4DSQ Somatization subscale is a questionnaire of moderate sensitivity and specificity.

Keywords

Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire Somatoform disorders Occupational health setting Sensitivity Specificity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors of this article would like to thank Melanie de Ruiter for doing the MINI interviews on this project, and Jasper Nuijen for his assistance in data management.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    de Waal MW, Arnold IA, van Hemert AM. Somatoform disorder in general practice. Prevalence, functional impairment and depressive disorders. Br J Psychiatry. 2004;184:470–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoedeman R, Krol B, Blankenstein N, Koopmans PC, Groothoff JW. Severe MUPS in a sick-listed population: a cross-sectional study on prevalence, recognition, psychiatric co-morbidity and impairment. BMC Public Health. 2009;9:440.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Vroege L, Hoedeman R, Nuyen R, Sijtsma K, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM. Validation of the PHQ-15 for somatoform disorder in the occupational health care setting. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(1):51–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vlasveld MC, van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Bültmann U, Beekman ATF, van Mechelen W, Hoedeman R, Anema JR. Predicting return to work in workers with all-cause sickness absence greater than 4 weeks: a prospective cohort study. J Occup Rehabil. 2012;22(1):118–26.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Hoedeman R, de Jong FJ, Meeuwissen JA, Drewes HW, van der Laan NC, Adèr HJ. Faster return to work after psychiatric consultation for sicklisted employees with common mental disorders compared to care as usual. A randomized clinical trial. J Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2010;6:375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Meeuwissen JA, de Jong FJ, Hoedeman R, Elfeddali I. Randomised controlled trial of a psychiatric consultation model for treatment of common mental disorder in the occupational health setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:29.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Terluin B, van Marwijk HW, Adèr HJ, Penninx BW, Hermens ML, van Boeijen CA, van Balkom AJ, van der Klink JJ, Stalman WA. The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ): a validation study of a multidimensional self-report questionnaire to assess distress, depression, anxiety and somatization. BMC Psychiatr. 2006;6:34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sheehan DV, Lecrubier Y, Sheehan KH, Amorim P, Janavs J, Weiller E, Hergueta T, Baker R, Dunbar GC. The mini-international neuropsychiatric interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(20):22–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Terluin B. De vierdimensionale klachtenlijst (4DKL). Een vragenlijst voor het meten van distress, depressie, angst en somatisatie [The four-dimensional symptom questionnaire (4DSQ). A questionnaire to measure distress, depression, anxiety, and somatization]. Huisarts & Wetenschap 1996;39(12):538–47.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Terluin B, van Rhenen W, Schauffels WB, de Haan M. The four-dimensional symptom questionnaire (4DSQ): measuring distress and other mental health problems in a working population. Work Stress. 2004;18(3):187–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Braam C, van Oostrum SH, Terluin B, Vasse R, de Vet HVW, Anema JR. Validation study of a distress screener. J Occup Rehabil. 2009;19(3):231–7.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 2003.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Offringa M, Assendelft WJJ, Scholten RJPM. Inleiding in evidence-based medicine [Introduction in evidence-based medicine]. Bohn Stafleu van Loghum; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Agresti A, Coull BA. Approximate is better than “Exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. Am Stat. 1998;52(2):119–26.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (version 19.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(1):155–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Jaeschke R. A reader’s guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical example of sepsis. Intensiv Care Med. 2003;29(7):1043–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jones CM, Athanasiou T. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve analysis techniques in the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79(1):16–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoedeman R, Blankenstein AH, Krol B, Koopmans PC, Groothoff JW. The contribution of high levels of somatic symptom severity to sickness absence duration, disability and discharge. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(2):264–73.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Oldeman TC, Borghuis MS, Lucassen PL, van de Laar FA, Speckens AE, van Weel C. Medically unexplained symptoms, somatisation disorder and hypochondriasis: course and prognosis. A systematic review. J Psychosom Res. 2009;66(5):363–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harris AM, Orav EJ, Bates DW, Barsky AJ. Somatization increases disability independent of comorbidity. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(2):155–61.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Barsky AJ, Orav EJ, Bates DW. Somatization increases medical utilization and costs independent of psychiatric and medical co-morbidity. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(8):903–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, van Oppen P, Adèr HJ, van Dyck R. Randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care model with psychiatric consultation for persistent medically unexplained symptoms in general practice. Psychoth Psychosom. 2006;75(5):282–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van der Feltz-Cornelis CM, Hoedeman R, Keuter EJ, Swinkels JA. Presentation of the multidisciplinary guideline medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) and somatoform disorder in the Netherlands: disease management according to risk profiles. J Psychosom Res. 2012;72(2):168–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lars de Vroege
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wilco H. M. Emons
    • 3
  • Klaas Sijtsma
    • 3
  • Rob Hoedeman
    • 4
    • 5
  • Christina M. van der Feltz-Cornelis
    • 1
    • 2
    • 6
  1. 1.Tranzo Department, Tilburg School of Behavioral and Social SciencesTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Clinical Centre for Body, Mind and HealthGGz BreburgTilburgThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Methodology and StatisticsTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Health SciencesUniversity Medical Center of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of ScienceArboNed Occupational Health ServicesUtrechtThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Trimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and AddictionUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations