Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS): Optimal cut points for remission and response in a German sample.
Saved in:
| Title: | Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS): Optimal cut points for remission and response in a German sample. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | von Glischinski, M., Willutzki, U., Stangier, U., Hiller, W., Hoyer, J., Leibing, E., Leichsenring, F., Hirschfeld, G. |
| Source: | Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. May/Jun2018, Vol. 25 Issue 3, p465-473. 9p. 5 Charts, 2 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Classification of mental disorders, Social anxiety, Psychotherapy, Randomized controlled trials, Treatment effectiveness, Disease remission, Prognosis, Diagnosis, Therapeutics |
| Geographic Terms: | Germany |
| Abstract: | The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) is the most frequently used instrument to assess social anxiety disorder (SAD) in clinical research and practice. Both a self‐reported (LSAS‐SR) and a clinician‐administered (LSAS‐CA) version are available. The aim of the present study was to define optimal cut‐off (OC) scores for remission and response to treatment for the LSAS in a German sample. Data of N = 311 patients with SAD were used who had completed psychotherapeutic treatment within a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Diagnosis of SAD and reduction in symptom severity according to the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, served as gold standard. OCs yielding the best balance between sensitivity and specificity were determined using receiver operating characteristics. The variability of the resulting OCs was estimated by nonparametric bootstrapping. Using diagnosis of SAD (present vs. absent) as a criterion, results for remission indicated cut‐off values of 35 for the LSAS‐SR and 30 for the LSAS‐CA, with acceptable sensitivity (LSAS‐SR: .83, LSAS‐CA: .88) and specificity (LSAS‐SR: .82, LSAS‐CA: .87). For detection of response to treatment, assessed by a 1‐point reduction in the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, rating, a reduction of 28% for the LSAS‐SR and 29% for the LSAS‐CA yielded the best balance between sensitivity (LSAS‐SR: .75, LSAS‐CA: .83) and specificity (LSAS‐SR: .76, LSAS‐CA: .80). To our knowledge, we are the first to define cut points for the LSAS in a German sample. Overall, the cut points for remission and response corroborate previously reported cut points, now building on a broader data basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) is the most frequently used instrument to assess social anxiety disorder (SAD) in clinical research and practice. Both a self‐reported (LSAS‐SR) and a clinician‐administered (LSAS‐CA) version are available. The aim of the present study was to define optimal cut‐off (OC) scores for remission and response to treatment for the LSAS in a German sample. Data of N = 311 patients with SAD were used who had completed psychotherapeutic treatment within a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Diagnosis of SAD and reduction in symptom severity according to the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, served as gold standard. OCs yielding the best balance between sensitivity and specificity were determined using receiver operating characteristics. The variability of the resulting OCs was estimated by nonparametric bootstrapping. Using diagnosis of SAD (present vs. absent) as a criterion, results for remission indicated cut‐off values of 35 for the LSAS‐SR and 30 for the LSAS‐CA, with acceptable sensitivity (LSAS‐SR: .83, LSAS‐CA: .88) and specificity (LSAS‐SR: .82, LSAS‐CA: .87). For detection of response to treatment, assessed by a 1‐point reduction in the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, rating, a reduction of 28% for the LSAS‐SR and 29% for the LSAS‐CA yielded the best balance between sensitivity (LSAS‐SR: .75, LSAS‐CA: .83) and specificity (LSAS‐SR: .76, LSAS‐CA: .80). To our knowledge, we are the first to define cut points for the LSAS in a German sample. Overall, the cut points for remission and response corroborate previously reported cut points, now building on a broader data basis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10633995 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/cpp.2179 |
