Beyond frequency: evaluating the validity of assessing the context, duration, ability, and botherment of depression and anxiety symptoms in South Brazil

Assessment tools for depression and anxiety usually inquire about the frequency of symptoms. However, evidence suggests that different question framings might trigger different responses. Our aim is to test if asking about symptom’s context, ability, duration, and botherment adds validity to Patient Health Questionnaire–9, General Anxiety Disorder–7, and Patient-Related Outcome Measurement Information Systems depression and anxiety. Participants came from two cross-sectional convenience-sampled surveys (N = 1,871) of adults (66% females, aged 33.4 ± 13.2), weighted to approximate with the state-level population. We examined measurement invariance across the different question frames, estimated whether framing affected mean scores, and tested their independent validity using covariate-adjusted and sample-weighted structural equation models. Validity was tested using tools assessing general disability, alcohol use, loneliness, well-being, grit, and frequency-based questions from depression and anxiety questionnaires. A bifactor model was applied to test the internal consistency of the question frames under the presence of a general factor (i.e., depression or anxiety). Measurement invariance was supported across the different frames. Framing questions as ability (i.e., “How easily …”) produced a higher score, compared with framing by context (i.e., “In which daily situations …”). Construct and criterion validity analysis demonstrate that variance explained using multiple question frames was similar to using only one. We detected a strong overarching factor for each instrument, with little variances left to be explained by the question frame. Therefore, it is unlikely that using different adverbial phrasings can help clinicians and researchers to improve their ability to detect depression or anxiety.