Abstract
Despite the prominent use of the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) in primary healthcare systems, few studies have confirmed its diagnostic utility and psychometric properties in non-Western countries. This study aims to clarify the clinical utility of the BAI as a screening tool for anxiety disorders according to DSM-IV criteria, based on blind recruitment and diagnostic interviews of both clinical and non-clinical participants in the Korean population. A total of 1,157 participants were involved in the final psychometric analysis, which included correlational analysis with other anxiety and depression self-report measures and mean score comparison with the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). ROC analysis and calculation of positive and negative predictive values were conducted to examine diagnostic utility. The BAI was found to have high correlations with depression-related self-report measures (0.747–0.796) and moderate to high correlations with anxiety-related self-report measures (0.518–0.776). The ROC analysis failed to provide cutoff scores with adequate sensitivity and specificity for identifying participants with anxiety disorders (85.0% sensitivity, 88.1% specificity, and 92.8% AUC). The comparison of BAI and BDI mean scores for different diagnostic groups revealed that BAI and BDI scores were higher in the depressive or anxiety disorders group than in the non-clinical group. However, BAI mean score was not higher for the anxiety-only group than the depression-only group. Our data supports the BAI reliability and validity as a tool to measure the severity of general anxiety in clinical and non-clinical populations; however, it fails to capture the unique characteristics of anxiety disorders that distinguish them from depressive disorders. Further clinical implications of the BAI based on these results and some limitations of the study are discussed.
Highlights
The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) is a prominent screening and outcome research tool for measuring the anxiety [1], and is validated in a number of languages, including German, French, Chinese, Spanish, Persian, Nepal, Icelandic, and others [2,3,4,5,6,7]
Using unbiased clinical and non-clinical samples, this study aims to [1] determine the divergent and convergent validity of the BAI compared to an extended set of proxy self-report questionnaires designed to measure depression and anxiety symptoms in Korean clinical and non-clinical samples; [2] provide a comparison of BAI severity scores in anxiety disorder only, depressive disorder only, and comorbid anxiety and depression populations; and [3] reconsider the clinical utility of the BAI by determining cutoff scores and calculating specificity and sensitivity as well as positive and negative predictive power using Korean anxiety disorder base rates
As confirmed by the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), 9.1% of participants were diagnosed with major depressive disorder, 16.5% with any type of depressive disorder, 8.4% with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), 19.3% with any type of anxiety disorder, and 5.4% with bipolar disorders
Summary
The Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) is a prominent screening and outcome research tool for measuring the anxiety [1], and is validated in a number of languages, including German, French, Chinese, Spanish, Persian, Nepal, Icelandic, and others [2,3,4,5,6,7]. According to the meta-analysis of BAI (k = 117), BAI was reported to manifest an excellent internal consistency in clinical (0.91) and non-clinical sample (0.91) and a good test-retest reliability in clinical (0.66) and non-clinical (0.65) [1]. This 21-item self-report questionnaire was originally developed to assess clinical anxiety While depression is defined as the experience of being sad, gloomy, and empty which is typically associated with events experienced in the past and decreased autonomic activity, anxiety is defined as feelings of fear and tension, and apprehension which is usually related to anticipation of future events and activation of autonomic nervous system [28]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
