Psychiatric Quarterly

, Volume 89, Issue 1, pp 111–115 | Cite as

The DSM-5 Self-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure as a Screening Tool

  • Leo Bastiaens
  • James Galus
Original Paper


The DSM-5 Self-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure was developed to aid clinicians with a dimensional assessment of psychopathology; however, this measure resembles a screening tool for several symptomatic domains. The objective of the current study was to examine the basic parameters of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive power of the measure as a screening tool. One hundred and fifty patients in a correctional community center filled out the measure prior to a psychiatric evaluation, including the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview screen. The above parameters were calculated for the domains of depression, mania, anxiety, and psychosis. The results showed that the sensitivity and positive predictive power of the studied domains was poor because of a high rate of false positive answers on the measure. However, when the lowest threshold on the Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure was used, the sensitivity of the anxiety and psychosis domains and the negative predictive values for mania, anxiety and psychosis were good. In conclusion, while it is foreseeable that some clinicians may use the DSM-5 Self-Rated Level 1 Cross-Cutting Symptom Measure as a screening tool, it should not be relied on to identify positive findings. It functioned well in the negative prediction of mania, anxiety and psychosis symptoms.


DSM-5 self-rated level 1 cross-cutting symptom measure Screen 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.


  1. 1.
    Narrow W, Clarke D, Kuramoto J. DSM-5 Field Trials in the United States and Canada, Part III: Development and Reliability Testing of a Cross-Cutting Symptom Assessment for DSM-5. Am J Psychiatry. 2013; 170: 71–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarke D, Kuhl E. DSM-5 cross-cutting symptom measures: a step towards the future of psychiatric care? World Psychiatry. 2014; 13: 214–216Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Whooley M. Screening for Depression—A Tale of Two Questions. JAMA Internal Medicine Published online January 26, 2016Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones D. Dimensional and Cross-Cutting Assessment in the DSM-5. J. Counseling & Development. 2012; 90: 481–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martin M, Colman I, Simpson A. Mental health screening tools in correctional institutions: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry. 2013; 13: 275–281CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Steadman H, Osher F, Clark Robbins P. Prevalence of Serious Mental Illness Among Jail Inmates. Psychiatric Services. 2009; 60:761–765CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bastiaens L. Poor Practice, Managed Care, and Magic Pills: Have We Created a Mental Health Monster? Psychiatric Times. April 29, 2011Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bastiaens L, Galus J, Goodlin M. The 12 item W.H.O.D.A.S. as primary self report outcome measure in a correctional community treatment center for dually diagnosed patients. Psychiatr Q. 2015; 86: 219–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brooker C, Repper J, Sirdifield C. Review of service delivery and organisational research focused on prisoners with mental disorders. J Forens Psychiatry Psychol. 2009; 20: S102-S123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whooley M, Avins A, Miranda J. Case-finding instruments for depression: two questions are as good as many. J Gen Intern Med. 1997; 12: 439–445CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zimmerman M, Mattia J. A Self-Report Scale to Help Make Psychiatric Diagnoses: The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2001; 58: 787–794CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Renewal Treatment, Inc.PittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations