Premium
Revalidation of Adjustment Disorder–New Module‐4 screening of adjustment disorder in a non‐clinical sample: Psychometric reevaluation and correlates with other ICD‐11 mental disorders
Author(s) -
Lavenda Osnat,
MahatShamir Michal,
Lorenz Louisa,
HamamaRaz Yaira,
GreenblattKimron Lee,
PitchoPrelorentzos Shani,
Ring Lia,
BarShua Eti,
BenEzra Menachem
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
psych journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.417
H-Index - 14
eISSN - 2046-0260
pISSN - 2046-0252
DOI - 10.1002/pchj.286
Subject(s) - discriminant validity , clinical psychology , cutoff , psychology , construct validity , convergent validity , confirmatory factor analysis , anxiety , psychometrics , psychiatry , statistics , structural equation modeling , physics , mathematics , quantum mechanics , internal consistency
In line with the new conceptualization of adjustment disorder (AjD) in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases ( ICD‐11 ), a new 20‐item self‐report questionnaire was developed and validated – the Adjustment Disorder–New Module (ADNM). However, such a long research tool has the potential to become problematic for use in epidemiological and clinical settings. Therefore, an ultra‐brief measure for AjD (ADNM‐4) was established and validated in a recent study conducted with a representative national sample. The aim of the present study was to revalidate the ultra‐brief ADNM‐4 Scale, as well as to reestablish cutoff scores for clinical use. An online survey was conducted with a convenience sample of 484 Israelis aged 18–65 years, who were recruited via social media. Participants filled out self‐report questionnaires dealing with diagnostic criteria of stress‐related disorders, that is, AjD (the original and ultra‐brief modules), prolonged grief disorder, depression, anxiety, and hypochondriasis. Construct, discriminant, and convergent validity were assessed via confirmatory factor analysis and correlation coefficients, while cutoff scores were established through receiver–operating characteristic analysis. The findings confirmed the ultra‐brief module's validity. The high fit indices indicated construct validity, and the correlations with the various stress‐related disorders indicated good convergent and discriminant validity. Cutoff scores resembled earlier cutoff scores calculated with a representative national sample, indicating a consistent and accurate diagnostic ability. These findings provide additional evidence for the psychometric characteristics of the ADNM‐4, which seems to be a suitable brief screening tool for assessing AjD symptoms according to the ICD‐11 definition. Therefore, the ADNM‐4 is recommended in cases where prompt screening is required, as well as for research purposes.