vix.ing · top · new · best · stats

Screening for Serious Mental Illness in the General Population

2003/02/01 by Ronald C. Kessler, Peggy R. Barker, Lisa J. Colpe +11 · 5,772 citations
Medicine · Psychology · #CIDI #Clinical psychology #Distress #Dual diagnosis #Environmental health #Medicine #Mental Health Treatment and Access #Mental health #Mental illness #Population #Prevalence of mental disorders #Psychiatry #Psychology #Scale (ratio) #Schizophrenia research and treatment #Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes #Substance abuse

paper · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184

published in Archives of General Psychiatry 60(2), 184 (American Medical Association)

openalex publication_date 2003/02/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Public Law 102-321 established a block grant for adults with "serious mental illness" (SMI) and required the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to develop a method to estimate the prevalence of SMI. METHODS: Three SMI screening scales were developed for possible use in the SAMHSA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short-Form (CIDI-SF) scale, the K10/K6 nonspecific distress scales, and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO-DAS). An enriched convenience sample of 155 respondents was administered all screening scales followed by the 12-month Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). We defined SMI as any 12-month DSM-IV disorder, other than a substance use disorder, with a GAF score of less than 60. RESULTS: All screening scales were significantly related to SMI. However, neither the CIDI-SF nor the WHO-DAS improved prediction significantly over the K10 or K6 scales. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of SMI was 0.854 for K10 and 0.865 for K6. The most efficient screening scale, K6, had a sensitivity (SE) of 0.36 (0.08) and a specificity of 0.96 (0.02) in predicting SMI. CONCLUSIONS: The brevity and accuracy of the K6 and K10 scales make them attractive screens for SMI. Routine inclusion of either scale in clinical studies would create an important, and heretofore missing, crosswalk between community and clinical epidemiology.

Cited by

Related