Hopkins Symptom Checklist- Depression Scale DRC Version

Information about Measure
First Name Judith
Last Name Bass
Email jbass1@jhu.edu
Affiliation Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Other means of contacting author (e.g., website, Academia.edu, ResearchGate)
Mental health assessment tool that was adapted/developed/validated Hopkins Symptom Checklist- Depression Scale
Mental health condition assessed Depressive disorders
Idiom of distress included, if any Not Applicable
Lifestage of interest Adult (General)
Age range (age – age)
Country or countries where tool was developed/adapted/validated Democratic Republic of the Congo
Language(s) of the adapted/developed/validated tool Lingala
Clinical or community sample? Clinical
Subpopulation in which tool was developed/validated (e.g., tool was developed and tested among middle-class women)? Tool was developed and tested among women seeking antenatal care at the Kingasani MaternityClinic
Development procedures Culturally adapted and validated
If validated, what was the gold standard? Assessed using convergent validity by comparing depression severity scores with severity in dysfunction (functional impairment scores)
Description of other development procedures, if applicable
Cronbach’s alpha 0.86
Sensitivity 0.81
Spec 0.80
Other information about tool (e.g., additional psychometrics [NPV, PPV, Youden’s index, diagnostic odds ratio]) Optimal cut-off for the scale determined by sensitivity and specificity analyses is a combined score of 15. From the empirical analysis, 80.3% of individuals were correctly classified. Area under the curve, (standard error), and [confidence intervals] are as follows: 0.87, (0.05), [0.76–0.98].
Links to development/adaptation/validation studies and/or previous studies using the tool Bass, J. K., Ryder, R. W., Lammers, M., Mukaba, T. N., & Bolton, P. A. (2008). Post-partum depression in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo: Validation of a concept using a mixed-methods cross-cultural approach. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 13(12), 1534-1542. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3156.2008.02160.x
Notes when administering the tool Anyone interested in using this tool should inform Judith Bass about their intent to use it. Any reports or publications arising from use of the tool should acknowledge the Global Mental Health group at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
This scale is designed to be delivered to new mothers, and was tested in the Kinshasa region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The HSCL-D should be administered verbally by researchers and/or clinicians who are bilingual or polygots, fluent in the local language, Lingala, as well as French and/or English. Total score should be calculated by summing scores on each items using equal weight.

Acholi Psychosocial Assessment Instrument

Information about Measure
First Name Theresa
Last Name Betancourt
Email theresa.betancourt@bc.edu
Affiliation Boston College School of Social Work
Other means of contacting author (e.g., website, Academia.edu, ResearchGate)
Mental health assessment tool that was adapted/developed/validated Acholi Psychosocial Assessment Instrument
Mental health condition assessed Other: Depression-like (two tam, par and kumu), anxiety-like (ma lwor) and conduct problems (kwo maraco)
Idiom of distress included, if any Depression-like (two tam, par and kumu), anxiety-like (ma lwor) and conduct problems (kwo maraco)
Lifestage of interest Childhood or Adolescence
Age range (age – age) 14-17
Country or countries where tool was developed/adapted/validated Uganda
Language(s) of the adapted/developed/validated tool Acholi Luo
Clinical or community sample? Community
Subpopulation in which tool was developed/validated (e.g., tool was developed and tested among middle-class women)? Tool was developed for use among internally displaced persons (IDPs), specifically war-affected adolescents.
Development procedures Locally developed
If validated, what was the gold standard?
Description of other development procedures, if applicable
Cronbach’s alpha 0.93
Sensitivity
Spec
Other information about tool (e.g., additional psychometrics [NPV, PPV, Youden’s index, diagnostic odds ratio]) Other psychometric properties examined for this specific empirical study include: Split Halves reliability (Spearman-Brown): 0.94, Test–retest reliability (r): 0.84, and Inter-rater reliability: 0.74.
Links to development/adaptation/validation studies and/or previous studies using the tool Betancourt, Theresa S,ScD., M.A., Bass, J., PhD., Borisova, I., EdM., Neugebauer, R., PhD., Speelman, L., M.A., Onyango, G., M.A., & Bolton, P., M.B.B.S. (2009). Assessing local instrument reliability and validity: A field-based example from northern uganda. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44(8), 685-92. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/10.1007/s00127-008-0475-1
Notes when administering the tool This tool is attended for use among war-affected adolescents aged 14-17 and was developed and tested in the Unyama and Awer IDP camps in Gulu, Uganda. The tool should be administered verbally in the Acholi Luo, with the aims of assessing local idioms of distress that approximate Western psychiatric classifications of depression, anxiety, and conduct problems. In this case, both the youth and their caregivers were asked for responses to each item on the APAI scale.

African Youth Psychosocial Assessment (AYPA)

Information about Measure
First Name Theresa
Last Name Betancourt
Email theresa.betancourt@bc.edu
Affiliation Boston College School of Social Work
Other means of contacting author (e.g., website, Academia.edu, ResearchGate)
Mental health assessment tool that was adapted/developed/validated African Youth Psychosocial Assessment (AYPA)
Mental health condition assessed Other: Emotional and Behavioral Problems
Idiom of distress included, if any Not Applicable
Lifestage of interest Childhood or Adolescence
Age range (age – age)
Country or countries where tool was developed/adapted/validated Uganda
Language(s) of the adapted/developed/validated tool Acholi Luo
Clinical or community sample? Community
Subpopulation in which tool was developed/validated (e.g., tool was developed and tested among middle-class women)? Tool was developed and tested among adolescents that resided in a camp for internally displaced persons for at least 1 month
Development procedures Locally developed
If validated, what was the gold standard? Using a comparison of parent and self-reported ratings on presence of local syndrome terms
Description of other development procedures, if applicable
Cronbach’s alpha
Sensitivity
Spec
Other information about tool (e.g., additional psychometrics [NPV, PPV, Youden’s index, diagnostic odds ratio]) All sub-scales had satisfactory to excellent alpha values, listed as follows:prosocial/adaptive (α= 0.72), somatic complaints without medical cause (α= 0.74), externalizing problems (α=0.83),and internalizing problems (α= 0.88).
For the actual scale, see Appendix B- Table 1. https://onlinelibrary-wiley-com.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/doi/epdf/10.1002/mpr.1420
Links to development/adaptation/validation studies and/or previous studies using the tool Betancourt, T. S., Yang, F., Bolton, P., Normand, S. (2014). Developing an African youth psychosocial assessment: An application of item response theory. International Journal of Methods Psychiatric Research, 23, 142–160. doi:10.1002/mpr.1420
Notes when administering the tool This tool is intended for use among internally displaced war-affected adolescents in Uganda. The assessment was designed to be administered verbally due to low literacy among respondents. A visual aid may be used to clarify response options for participants.

Hopkins Symptom Checklist- Depression Scale and Agahinda Gakabije

Information about Measure
First Name Paul
Last Name Bolton
Email pbolton1@jhu.edu
Affiliation Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Other means of contacting author (e.g., website, Academia.edu, ResearchGate)
Mental health assessment tool that was adapted/developed/validated Hopkins Symptom Checklist- Depression Scale and Agahinda Gakabije
Mental health condition assessed Depressive disorders
Idiom of distress included, if any Agahinda gakabije (local idiom of distress that approximates Western category of depression)
Lifestage of interest Adult (General)
Age range (age – age)
Country or countries where tool was developed/adapted/validated Rwanda
Language(s) of the adapted/developed/validated tool Kinyarwanda
Clinical or community sample? Community
Subpopulation in which tool was developed/validated (e.g., tool was developed and tested among middle-class women)? Simple random sample of 400 houses in Kanzenze commune
Development procedures Locally developed and culturally validated
If validated, what was the gold standard?
Description of other development procedures, if applicable
Cronbach’s alpha 0.87
Sensitivity
Spec
Other information about tool (e.g., additional psychometrics [NPV, PPV, Youden’s index, diagnostic odds ratio]) Test-retest reliability of a DHSCL-based scale was 0.67. The sensitivity of agahinda gakabije for depression was 94.7% and specificity was 38.2%.
Links to development/adaptation/validation studies and/or previous studies using the tool Bolton, P. A. (2001). Cross-cultural validity and reliability testing of a standard psychiatric assessment instrument without a gold standard. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 189(4), 238-242. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005053-200104000-00005
Notes when administering the tool This scale should be administered verbally to participants by trained researchers, in order to assess the cultural idiom of distress, participants were simply asked if they had agahinda gakabije. The adapted HSCL should be summed with all items treated at equal weight.

Anyone interested in using this tool should inform Paul Bolton about their intent to use it. Any reports or publications arising from use of the tool should acknowledge the Global Mental Health group at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

 

Mental Health Assessment Inventory (MHAI)

Information about Measure
First Name S. Benjamin
Last Name Doty
Email s.benjamin.doty@jhu.edu
Affiliation Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Other means of contacting author (e.g., website, Academia.edu, ResearchGate)
Mental health assessment tool that was adapted/developed/validated Mental Health Assessment Inventory (MHAI)
Mental health condition assessed Multiple disorders: Common mental health disorders
Idiom of distress included, if any Not Applicable
Lifestage of interest Adult (General)
Age range (age – age)
Country or countries where tool was developed/adapted/validated Ukraine
Language(s) of the adapted/developed/validated tool Russian
Clinical or community sample? Community
Subpopulation in which tool was developed/validated (e.g., tool was developed and tested among middle-class women)? Internally displaced persons in Ukraine
Development procedures Locally developed and validated
If validated, what was the gold standard? The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-Research Version (SCID-IV-RV, 2010 revision)
Description of other development procedures, if applicable
Cronbach’s alpha
Sensitivity
Spec
Other information about tool (e.g., additional psychometrics [NPV, PPV, Youden’s index, diagnostic odds ratio]) On the full MHAI scales, there were minor, if any, differences between the baseline and re-interview samples for PTS (α = 0.97 vs. 0.97), anxiety (α = 0.90 vs. 0.89), depression (α = 0.94 vs. 0.93). Test-retest reliability scores of the full MHAI scales are as follows: for post-traumatic stress (r = 0.87), depression (r = 0.84), and anxiety (r = 0.80).
Links to development/adaptation/validation studies and/or previous studies using the tool Doty, S. B., Haroz, E. E., Singh, N. S., Bogdanov, S., Bass, J. K., Murray, L. K., Bolton, P. A. (2018). Adaptation and testing of an assessment for mental health and alcohol use problems among conflict-affected adults in Ukraine. Conflict and Health, 12(1). doi:10.1186/s13031-018-0169-6
Notes when administering the tool The tool was developed and administered in Russian, as most of the IDP participants were from Russian-speaking regions. The tool should be administered verbally by trained research assistants.

Anyone interested in using this tool should inform Benjamin Doty about their intent to use it. Any reports or publications arising from use of the tool should acknowledge the Global Mental Health group at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as well as the funder who supported initial development of the tool: the United States Agency for International Development Victims of Torture Fund Cooperative Agreement AID-OAA-LA-15-00003 and the
National Institute of Mental Health. T32MH103210.

 

International Depression Symptom Scale-General version (IDSS-G)

Information about Measure
First Name Emily
Last Name Haroz
Email eharoz1@jhu.edu
Affiliation Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Other means of contacting author (e.g., website, Academia.edu, ResearchGate) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emily_Haroz
Mental health assessment tool that was adapted/developed/validated International Depression Symptom Scale-General Version (IDSS-G)
Mental health condition assessed Depressive disorders
Idiom of distress included, if any Not Applicable
Lifestage of interest Adult (General)
Age range (age – age)
Country or countries where tool was developed/adapted/validated Myanmar
Language(s) of the adapted/developed/validated tool Burmese
Clinical or community sample? Clinical
Subpopulation in which tool was developed/validated (e.g., tool was developed and tested among middle-class women)? Male and female attendees of primary health clinics in Yangon, Myanmar
Development procedures Locally developed and validated
If validated, what was the gold standard? Scores on the IDSS-G of participants diagnosed with a SCID disorder were compared with those without a disorder (diagnosed by local psychiatrist)
Description of other development procedures, if applicable
Cronbach’s alpha 0.92
Sensitivity 0.77
Spec 0.67
Other information about tool (e.g., additional psychometrics [NPV, PPV, Youden’s index, diagnostic odds ratio]) Test–retest reliability (r = 0.87), and inter-rater reliability (ICC = 0.90) were both examined. Haroz et al. identified an optimal cut-off score for the IDSS-G of 0.56, which corresponded to a sensitivity and specificity of 73% and 67% for any v. no disorder, and 77% and 67% for a depressive disorder v. no disorder. The psychometric properties entered reflect those for individuals with/without depressive disorder.
Links to development/adaptation/validation studies and/or previous studies using the tool Haroz, E. E., Bass, J. K., Lee, C., Murray, L. K., Robinson, C., & Bolton, P. (2014). Adaptation and testing of psychosocial assessment instruments for cross-cultural use: An example from the Thailand Burma border. BMC Psychology, 2(1). doi:10.1186/s40359-014-0031-6
Notes when administering the tool This tool is intended for use among populations around the global, but has thus far been validated three different settings with adults: 1) Yangon, Myanmar; 2) Karen State, Myanmar; and 3) Kiev and Zaporiziha, Ukraine. In this setting, local interviewers administered the full assessment using mobile devices and facilitated the cognitive
interviewing. Interviewers were people from the community with previous experience doing data collection. Clinical diagnosis was provided by local psychiatrists.Anyone interested in using this tool should inform Emily Haroz about their intent to use it. Any reports or publications arising from use of the tool should acknowledge the Global Mental Health group at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as well as the funder who supported initial development of the tool: the USAID Victims of Torture
fund.

Kreyol Distress Idiom (KDI) Scale

Information about Measure
First Name Bonnie
Last Name Kaiser
Email bfullard@gmail.com
Affiliation University of California San Diego
Other means of contacting author (e.g., website, Academia.edu, ResearchGate) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bonnie_Kaiser
Mental health assessment tool that was adapted/developed/validated Kreyol Distress Idiom (KDI) Scale
Mental health condition assessed Other: Multiple idioms of distress
Idiom of distress included, if any Multiple
Lifestage of interest Adult (General)
Age range (age – age) 18+
Country or countries where tool was developed/adapted/validated Haiti
Language(s) of the adapted/developed/validated tool Kreyol/Haitian Creole
Clinical or community sample? Community
Subpopulation in which tool was developed/validated (e.g., tool was developed and tested among middle-class women)? Rural communities in the Central Plateau
Development procedures Locally developed
If validated, what was the gold standard?
Description of other development procedures, if applicable
Cronbach’s alpha .89
Sensitivity
Spec
Other information about tool (e.g., additional psychometrics [NPV, PPV, Youden’s index, diagnostic odds ratio]) Principal component analysis extracted four components: (1) lack of control over thoughts and behaviors, (2) worry and rumination, (3) somatic indicators of anxiety, and (4) fatigue and foreshortened future. The KDI correlated with the BAI (r = 0.67) and BDI (r = 0.52). Factors associated with KDI score included female gender, older age, alcohol consumption, traumatic exposures, and having a household member with mental distress.
Links to development/adaptation/validation studies and/or previous studies using the tool In the original development article (Kaiser et al., 2013), 17 idioms of distress were tested; however, the final screener consists of 13 items
Kaiser, B. N., Kohrt, B. A., Keys, H. M., Khoury, N. M., & T., A.-R. (2013). Strategies for assessing mental health in Haiti: Local instrument development and transcultural translation. Transcultural Psychiatry, 50(4), 532–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363461513502697
Victoria N. Mutiso, Christine W. Musyimi, Tahilia J. Rebello, Isaiah Gitonga, Albert Tele, Kathleen M. Pike, David M. Ndetei. (2018) Patterns of concordances in mhGAP-IG screening and DSM-IV/ICD10 diagnoses by trained community service providers in Kenya: a pilot cross-sectional study. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 53:11, pages 1277-1287.
Notes when administering the tool Tool was designed and tested to be administered verbally among community samples. Response options correspond to a Likert scale (0-5), with all items equally weighted in generating sum scores