# Evidence-based assessment/Measures/MDQ

HGAPS is finding new ways to make psychological science conferences more accessible!
Here are examples from APA 2022 and the JCCAP Future Directions Forum. Coming soon... ABCT! ~ More at HGAPS.org ~
***This page is flagged for merging with the /Instruments/Mood_Disorders_Questionnaire page, and then deletion.

# Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ)

This page goes into detail about how to score and interpret the MDQ. It is a companion page to the general description on Wikipedia.
The Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) is a brief screen to improve detection of bipolar disorders. It generally shows good sensitivity to bipolar I, but has a harder time detecting the other types of bipolar disorders. It is not designed to measure current symptom severity or treatment response. It is one of the most translated and studied screening tools for bipolar disorders. Its brevity and simple reading level add to its popularity, along with it being free, fast to take and score.

## Versions

* What are the versions of this test that exists, if any? For each section, there should be a description of the test.
* If there are multiple versions, why was the most recent one created? (Usually DSM update or norm update, among other reasons)
* What is its intended population, number of questions and acronyms?

## Norms and Reliability
#### Norms

The MDQ was originally developed and validated in a large sample in the United States. Later studies used large clinical samples, online surveys distributed by advocacy groups, and other convenience samples. There are no carefully designed and stratified samples intended to be representative of a general population. Thus the MDQ fits as having "adequate" normative data based on the large number of convenience samples. Several meta-analyses have summarized the performance of the MDQ scores across the range of published languages, clinical settings, and administration formats.

#### Reliability

Reliability refers to whether the scores are reproducible. Unless otherwise specified, the reliability scores and values come from studies done with a United States population sample.
Applying the EBA rubric for evaluating norms and reliability to scores from the Mood Disorder Questionnaire :
| Criterion | Rating (adequate, good, excellent, too good*) | Explanation with references |
| Norms | Adequate | Multiple convenience samples and research studies, including both clinical and nonclinical samples[citation needed] |
| Internal consistency | Good? | Cronbach's alpha usually reported based on the symptom items (not the "episodic" or impairment items. These |
| Inter-rater reliability | Not applicable | Designed originally as a self-report scale; parent and youth report correlate about the same as cross-informant scores correlate in general |
| Test-retest reliability (stability | Good | r = .73 over 15 weeks. Evaluated in initial studies, with data also show high stability in clinical trials[citation needed] |
| Repeatability | Not published | No published studies formally checking repeatability |
Validity describes the evidence that an assessment tool measures what it was supposed to measure. There are many different ways of checking validity. For screening measures such as the CAGE, diagnostic accuracy and discriminative validity are probably the most useful ways of looking at validity.

#### Validity

Validity describes the evidence that an assessment tool measures what it was supposed to measure. There are many different ways of checking validity. For screening measures, diagnostic accuracy and discriminative validity are probably the most useful ways of looking at validity. Unless otherwise specified, the validity scores and values come from studies done with a United States population sample. A rubric for describing validity of assessment scores in the context of EBA is here.
Evaluation of validity and utility for the General Behavior Inventory (table from Youngstrom et al., unpublished, extended from Hunsley & Mash, 2008; *indicates new construct or category) :
| Criterion | Rating (adequate, good, excellent, too good*) | Explanation with references |
| Content validity | Excellent | Covers both DSM diagnostic symptoms and a range of associated features |
| Construct validity (e.g., predictive, concurrent, convergent, and discriminant validity) | Excellent | Shows convergent validity with other symptom scales, longitudinal prediction of development of mood disorders, criterion validity via metabolic markers and associations with family history of mood disorder. Factor structure complicated; the inclusion of “biphasic” or “mixed” mood items creates a lot of cross-loading |
| Discriminative validity | Excellent | Multiple studies show that GBI scores discriminate cases with unipolar and bipolar mood disorders from other clinical disorders effect sizes are among the largest of existing scales |
| Validity generalization | Good | Used both as self-report and caregiver report; used in college student as well as outpatient and inpatient clinical samples; translated into multiple languages with good reliability |
| Treatment sensitivity | Good | Multiple studies show sensitivity to treatment effects comparable to using interviews by trained raters, including placebo-controlled, masked assignment trials Short forms appear to retain sensitivity to treatment effects while substantially reducing burden |
| Clinical utility | Good | Free (public domain), strong psychometrics, extensive research base. Biggest concerns are length and reading level. Short forms have less research, but are appealing based on reduced burden and promising data |

## Development and history

* Why was this instrument developed? Why was there a need to do so? What need did it meet?
* What was the theoretical background behind this assessment? (e.g. addresses importance of 'negative cognitions', such as intrusions, inaccurate, sustained thoughts)
* How was the scale developed? What was the theoretical background behind it?
* How are these questions reflected in applications to theories, such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)?
* If there were previous versions, when were they published?
* Discuss the theoretical ideas behind the changes

## Impact

* What was the impact of this assessment? How did it affect assessment in psychiatry, psychology and health care professionals?
* What can the assessment be used for in clinical settings? Can it be used to measure symptoms longitudinally? Developmentally?

## Use in other populations

* How widely has it been used? Has it been translated into different languages? Which languages?

## Research

* Any recent research done that is pertinent?

## Limitations

* If self report, what are usual limitations of self-report?
* State the status of this assessment (is it copyrighted? If free, link to it).