The Personal Disturbance Scale (sAD): normative data and latent structure in a large non-clinical sample

• Published in: Personality and individual differences Vol. 33; no. 8; pp. 1343 - 1360
• Main Authors: Henry, J.D, Crawford, J.R, Bedford, A, Crombie, C, Taylor, E.P
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford Elsevier Ltd 01.12.2002; Elsevier
• Subjects: Biological and medical sciences; Latent structures; Medical sciences; Mood disorders; Normative data; Personal Disturbance Scale; Personality tests; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychometric properties; Psychometrics. Diagnostic aid systems; Psychopathology. Psychiatry; sAD; Techniques and methods; Tripartite model; Validity; Mood disorders; Validity; Tripartite model; Psychometric properties; sAD; Mood disorder; Human; Discriminant validity; Education level; Evaluation scale; Sex; Anxiety disorder; Depression; Psychometrics; Professional status; Sociodemographic factor; Convergent validity; Age
• ISSN: 0191-8869; 1873-3549
• DOI: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00017-X

The Personal Disturbance Scale [sAD; Bedford & Foulds (1978) Delusions–Symptoms–States Inventory State of Anxiety and Depression. Windsor: NFER-Nelson] is widely used in diverse settings and yet there are unresolved issues concerning its psychometric properties and normative data for the English speaking version are limited. The sAD was administered to a large sample of the general adult population ( N=758). Demographic variables (gender, age, years of education and occupational status) had only very modest influences on sAD scores. Tables are presented for conversion of raw scores on the Anxiety, Depression and Total scales to percentiles. The sAD scales possessed adequate convergent and discriminant validity, as demonstrated by their pattern of correlations with two other measures of depression and anxiety (the DASS and the HADS). Ten competing models of the latent structure of the sAD were derived from theoretical and empirical sources. These models were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis. The best fitting model (CFI=0.96) had a tripartite structure, and consisted of a general factor of psychological distress/negative affectivity (all items loaded on this factor) plus orthogonal specific factors of anxiety and depression. Correlated errors specified according to previous empirical findings were permitted. The theoretical and practical implications of this latent structure are discussed.