Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development of the MIND: a Screening Measure Assessing Mental Health Treatment Needs

  • Published:
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Early identification and treatment of mental illness symptoms results in better outcomes, yet few screeners are available that can be efficiently used in community settings. The Mental Illness Needs Detection (MIND) Screener was developed to identify the need for mental health treatment and administered to 820 adults across the USA. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the internal consistency of the MIND. The MIND significantly correlated with the Kessler-10 (K10; a well-validated screener), reported mental illness, mental health treatment, and the need for treatment. The MIND’s ability to accurately assess treatment needs was further demonstrated through high sensitivity (84%; 83%), specificity (71%; 62%), and AUC values (0.77; 0.73) when compared to both the K10 and reported need for treatment, respectively. These findings support the validity and reliability of the MIND and indicate its promise as a means of detecting a wide range of mental health needs across a variety of settings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Boonstra N, Klaassen R, Sytema S, et al. Duration of untreated psychosis and negative symptoms—a systematic review and meta-analysis individual patient data. Schizophrenia Research. 2012;142(1):12-19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ghio L, Gotelli S, Marcenaro M, et al. Duration of untreated illness and outcomes in unipolar depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2014;152-154:45-51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Penttilä M, Jääskeläinen E, Hirvonen N, et al. Duration of untreated psychosis as predictor of long-term outcome in schizophrenia: systematic review and meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2014;205(2):88-94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Petersen L, Jeppesen P, Thorup A, et al. A randomised multicentre trial of integrated versus standard treatment for patients with a first episode of psychotic illness. BMJ. 2005;331(7517):602.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hilton MF, Scuffham PA, Sheridan J, et al. The association between mental disorders and productivity in treated and untreated employees. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2009;51(9):996-1003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Iseselo MK, Kajula L, Yahya-Malima KI. The psychosocial problems of families caring for relatives with mental illnesses and their coping strategies: a qualitative urban based study in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16(1):146.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Kessler RC, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alonso J, et al. The global burden of mental disorders: an update from the WHO world mental health (WMH) surveys. Epidemiologia e Psichiatria Sociale. 2009;18(1):23-33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Perlick DA, Rosenheck RA, Miklowitz DJ. Caregiver burden and health in bipolar disorder: a cluster analytic approach. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 2008;196(6):484.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang PS, Berglun PA, Olfson M, et al. Delays in initial treatment contact after first onset of a mental disorder. Health Services Research. 2004;39(2):393-416.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Zivin K, Eisenberg D, Gollust SE, et al. Persistence of mental health problems and needs in a college student population. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2009;117(3):180-185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Post RM, Leverich GS, Kupka RW, et al. Early-onset bipolar disorder and treatment delay are risk factors for poor outcome in adulthood. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 2010;71(7):864-872.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Andrade LH, Alonso J, Mneimneh Z, et al. Barriers to mental health treatment: results from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. Psychological Medicine. 2014;44(6):1303-1317.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mojtabai R, Olfson M, Sampson NA, et al. Barriers to mental health treatment: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Psychological Medicine. 2011;41(8):1751-1761.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Oexle N, Aidacic-Gross V, Müller M, et al. Predicting perceived need for mental health care in a community sample: an application of the self-regulatory model. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2015;50(10):1593-1600.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wang PS, Berglund P, Olfson M, et al. Failure and delay in initial treatment contact after first onset of mental disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):603-613.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Beck AT, Steer RA. Beck Anxiety Inventory: Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2006;166:1092-1097.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2001;16(9):606-613.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Beck AT, Steer RA, Ranieri WF. Scale for suicide ideation: psychometric properties of a self-report version. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1988;44(4):499-505.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Beidas RS, Stewart RE, Walsh L, et al. Free, brief, and validated: standardized instruments for low-resource mental health settings. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice. 2015;22(1):5-19.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Hunsley J, Mash EJ. Introduction to the special section on developing guidelines for the evidence-based assessment (EBA) of adult disorders. Psychological Assessment. 2005;17(3):251.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. First MB, Williams JBW, Karg RS, et al. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5—Research Version (SCID-5 for DSM-5, research version; SCID-5-RV). Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association, 2015:1-94.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Robins N, Helzer JE, Croughan J, et al. National Institute of Mental Health diagnostic interview schedule: its history, characteristics and validity. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1981;38(4):381-389.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Shaffer D, Fisher, P, Lucas CP, et al. NIMH Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children Version IV (NIMH DISC-IV): description, differences from previous versions, and reliability of some common diagnoses. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2000;39(1):28-38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Butcher JN, Williams CL. Personality assessment with the MMPI-2: historical roots, international adaptations, and current challenges. Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being. 2009;1(1):105-135.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Clark LA, Watson D. Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1991;100(3):316.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Narrow WE, Clark DE, Kuramoto SJ, et al. 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. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2013;170(1):71-82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  30. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  31. DeSantis B, Jackson MJ, Duncan BL, et al. Casting a wider net in behavioral health screening in primary care: a preliminary study of the Outcome Rating Scale. Primary Health Care Research & Development. 2017;18(2):188-193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Glasgow RE, Riley WT. Pragmatic measures. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 2013;45(2):237-243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Ali GC, Ryan G, De Silva MJ. Validated screening tools for common mental disorders in low and middle income countries: a systematic review. PloS one. 2016;11(6):e0156939.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. U.S. Census Bureau. USA 2010 Quick Facts. Available online at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218. Accessed on April 3, 2019.

  35. Ormel J, VonKorff M, Ustün TB, et al. Common mental disorders and disability across cultures: results from the WHO Collaborative Study on Psychological Problems in General Health Care. Jama. 1994;272(22):1741-1748.

  36. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Cope LJ, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine. 2002;32(6):959-976.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Bland RC, Streiner DL. Why screening for depression in primary care is impractical. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal = journal de l'Association medicale Canadienne. 2013;185(9):753-754.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cornelius BL, Groothoff JW, van der Klink JJ, et al. The performance of the K10, K6 and GHQ-12 to screen for present state DSM-IV disorders among disability claimants. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):128.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297-334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hsiao JK, Bartko JJ, Potter WZ. Diagnosing diagnoses: receiver operating characteristic methods and psychiatry. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1989;46(7):664-667.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Brooks RT, Beard J, Steel Z. Factor structure and interpretation of the K10. Psychological Assessment. 2006;18(1):62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Berle D, Starcevic V, Milicevic D, et al. The factor structure of the Kessler-10 questionnaire in a treatment-seeking sample. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 2010;198(9):660-664.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Rumpf HJ, Meyer C, Hapke U, et al. Screening for mental health: validity of the MHI-5 using DSM-IV Axis 1 psychiatric disorders as gold standard. Psychiatry Research. 2001;105(3):243-253.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the Florida State University College of Medicine.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Florida Psychological Associates, 1903 Island Walkway, Fernandina Beach, FL, 32034, USA

    Laura E. Hume PhD, Catherine H. Drew PhD & Enrique Cibrian MS

Authors
  1. Laura E. Hume PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catherine H. Drew PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Enrique Cibrian MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura E. Hume PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Financial support for this project was provided, in part, from the Florida State University College of Medicine.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hume, L.E., Drew, C.H. & Cibrian, E. Development of the MIND: a Screening Measure Assessing Mental Health Treatment Needs. J Behav Health Serv Res 49, 91–105 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-020-09745-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-020-09745-x

Search

Navigation