No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Panic disorder, with or without agoraphobia (PDA or PD, respectively), is a major public health problem. After having established a PD diagnosis based on the DSM or the ICD systems, the Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS) is the most widely used interview-based instrument for assessing disorder severity. There is also a self-report version of the instrument (PDSS-SR); both exist in a Swedish translation but their psychometric properties remain untested. Methods: We studied 221 patients with PD/PDA recruited to a randomized controlled preference trial of cognitive-behavioral and brief panic-focused psychodynamic psychotherapy. In addition to PDSS and PDSS-SR the participants completed self-reports including the Clinical Outcome in Routine Evaluation-Outcome Measure, Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, Sheehan Disability Scale, Bodily Sensations Questionnaire and the Mobility Inventory for Agoraphobia. Results: PDSS and PDSS-SR possessed excellent psychometric properties (internal consistency, test-retest reliability) and convergent validity. A single factor structure for both versions was not confirmed. In terms of clinical utility, the PDSS had very high inter-rater reliability and correspondence with PD assessed via structured diagnostic interview. Both versions were sensitive to the effects of PD-focused treatment, although subjects scored systematically lower on the self-report version. Conclusions: The study confirmed the reliability and validity of the Swedish versions of PDSS and PDSS-SR. Both versions were highly sensitive to the effects of two PD-focused treatments and can be used both in clinical and research settings. However, further investigation of the factor structures of both the PDSS and PDSS-SR is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01606592 ARTICLE HISTORY

The purpose of the present study was to empirically test the suggestion that experiential avoidance in an emotion regulation context is best understood as an emotion regulatory function of topographically distinct strategies. To do this we examined whether a measure of experiential avoidance could statistically account for the effects of emotion regulation strategies intervening at different points of the emotion-generative process as conceptualized by Gross' (1998) process model of emotion regulation. The strategies under examination were behavioral avoidance, cognitive reappraisal, and response suppression. The specific hypotheses to be tested were (1) that behavioral avoidance, cognitive reappraisal, and response suppression would statistically mediate the differences in measures of psychological well-being between a clinical and nonclinical sample, but that (2) these indirect effects would be reduced to nonsignificant levels when controlling for differences in experiential avoidance. The results provide clear support for the first hypothesis with regard to all the studied strategies. In contrast to the second hypothesis, the results showed the predicted outcome pattern only for the response-focused strategy "response suppression" and not for cognitive reappraisal or behavioral avoidance. The results are interpreted and discussed in relation to theories on experiential avoidance and emotion regulation.