Cargando…

Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods

BACKGROUND: The Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5) and the Mental Health Component Summary score (MCS) derived from the Short Form 36 (SF-36) instrument are well validated and reliable scales. A drawback of their construction is that neither has a clinically validated cutpoint to define a case of commo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kelly, Mark J, Dunstan, Frank D, Lloyd, Keith, Fone, David L
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265280/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284689
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-8-10
_version_ 1782151463111229440
author Kelly, Mark J
Dunstan, Frank D
Lloyd, Keith
Fone, David L
author_facet Kelly, Mark J
Dunstan, Frank D
Lloyd, Keith
Fone, David L
author_sort Kelly, Mark J
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5) and the Mental Health Component Summary score (MCS) derived from the Short Form 36 (SF-36) instrument are well validated and reliable scales. A drawback of their construction is that neither has a clinically validated cutpoint to define a case of common mental disorder (CMD). This paper aims to produce cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS by comparison with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). METHODS: Data were analysed from wave 9 of the British Household Panel Survey (2000), providing a sample size of 14,669 individuals. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the scales and define cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS, using the following optimisation criteria: the Youden Index, the point closest to (0,1) on the ROC curve, minimising the misclassification rate, the minimax method, and prevalence matching. RESULTS: For the MHI-5, the Youden Index and the (0,1) methods both gave a cutpoint of 76, minimising the misclassification rate gave a cutpoint of 60 and the minimax method and prevalence matching gave a cutpoint of 68. For the MCS, the Youden Index and the (0,1) methods gave cutpoints of 51.7 and 52.1 respectively, minimising the error rate gave a cutpoint of 44.8 and both the minimax method and prevalence matching gave a cutpoint of 48.9. The correlation between the MHI-5 and the MCS was 0.88. CONCLUSION: The Youden Index and (0,1) methods are most suitable for determining a cutpoint for the MHI-5, since they are least dependent on population prevalence. The choice of method is dependent on the intended application. The MHI-5 performs remarkably well against the longer MCS.
format Text
id pubmed-2265280
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-22652802008-03-07 Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods Kelly, Mark J Dunstan, Frank D Lloyd, Keith Fone, David L BMC Psychiatry Research Article BACKGROUND: The Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5) and the Mental Health Component Summary score (MCS) derived from the Short Form 36 (SF-36) instrument are well validated and reliable scales. A drawback of their construction is that neither has a clinically validated cutpoint to define a case of common mental disorder (CMD). This paper aims to produce cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS by comparison with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). METHODS: Data were analysed from wave 9 of the British Household Panel Survey (2000), providing a sample size of 14,669 individuals. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the scales and define cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS, using the following optimisation criteria: the Youden Index, the point closest to (0,1) on the ROC curve, minimising the misclassification rate, the minimax method, and prevalence matching. RESULTS: For the MHI-5, the Youden Index and the (0,1) methods both gave a cutpoint of 76, minimising the misclassification rate gave a cutpoint of 60 and the minimax method and prevalence matching gave a cutpoint of 68. For the MCS, the Youden Index and the (0,1) methods gave cutpoints of 51.7 and 52.1 respectively, minimising the error rate gave a cutpoint of 44.8 and both the minimax method and prevalence matching gave a cutpoint of 48.9. The correlation between the MHI-5 and the MCS was 0.88. CONCLUSION: The Youden Index and (0,1) methods are most suitable for determining a cutpoint for the MHI-5, since they are least dependent on population prevalence. The choice of method is dependent on the intended application. The MHI-5 performs remarkably well against the longer MCS. BioMed Central 2008-02-19 /pmc/articles/PMC2265280/ /pubmed/18284689 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-8-10 Text en Copyright © 2008 Kelly et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kelly, Mark J
Dunstan, Frank D
Lloyd, Keith
Fone, David L
Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods
title Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods
title_full Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods
title_fullStr Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods
title_short Evaluating cutpoints for the MHI-5 and MCS using the GHQ-12: a comparison of five different methods
title_sort evaluating cutpoints for the mhi-5 and mcs using the ghq-12: a comparison of five different methods
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265280/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284689
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-8-10
work_keys_str_mv AT kellymarkj evaluatingcutpointsforthemhi5andmcsusingtheghq12acomparisonoffivedifferentmethods
AT dunstanfrankd evaluatingcutpointsforthemhi5andmcsusingtheghq12acomparisonoffivedifferentmethods
AT lloydkeith evaluatingcutpointsforthemhi5andmcsusingtheghq12acomparisonoffivedifferentmethods
AT fonedavidl evaluatingcutpointsforthemhi5andmcsusingtheghq12acomparisonoffivedifferentmethods