BackgroundResearch on Internet-based interventions typically use digital versions of pen and paper self-report symptom scales. However, adaptation into the digital format could affect the psychometric properties of established self-report scales. Several studies have investigated differences between digital and pen and paper versions of instruments, but no systematic review of the results has yet been done.ObjectiveThis review aims to assess the interformat reliability of self-report symptom scales used in digital or online psychotherapy research.MethodsThree databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO) were systematically reviewed for studies investigating the reliability between digital and pen and paper versions of psychiatric symptom scales.ResultsFrom a total of 1504 publications, 33 were included in the review, and interformat reliability of 40 different symptom scales was assessed. Significant differences in mean total scores between formats were found in 10 of 62 analyses. These differences were found in just a few studies, which indicates that the results were due to study effects and sample effects rather than unreliable instruments. The interformat reliability ranged from r=.35 to r=.99; however, the majority of instruments showed a strong correlation between format scores. The quality of the included studies varied, and several studies had insufficient power to detect small differences between formats.ConclusionsWhen digital versions of self-report symptom scales are compared to pen and paper versions, most scales show high interformat reliability. This supports the reliability of results obtained in psychotherapy research on the Internet and the comparability of the results to traditional psychotherapy research. There are, however, some instruments that consistently show low interformat reliability, suggesting that these conclusions cannot be generalized to all questionnaires. Most studies had at least some methodological issues with insufficient statistical power being the most common issue. Future studies should preferably provide information about the transformation of the instrument into digital format and the procedure for data collection in more detail.

Introduction There is a constant need for theoretically sound and valid self-report instruments for measuring psychological distress. Previous studies have shown that the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) is theoretically sound, but there have been some inconsistent results regarding its factor structure. Aims The aim of the present study was to investigate and elucidate the factor structure and convergent validity of the DASS-21. Methods A total of 624 participants recruited from student, primary care and psychotherapy populations. The factor structure of the DASS-21 was assessed by confirmatory factor analyses and the convergent validity by investigating its unique correlations with other psychiatric instruments. Results A bifactor structure with depression, anxiety, stress and a general factor provided the best fit indices for the DASS-21. The convergent validity was adequate for the Depression and Anxiety subscales but more ambiguous for the Stress subscale. Discussion The present study overall supports the validity and factor structure of the DASS-21. Implications for practice The DASS-21 can be used to measure symptoms of depression and anxiety as well as overall distress. It can be useful for mental health nurses, and other first-line psychiatric professionals, in need of a short, feasible and valid instrument in everyday care.

Our results suggest that online interventions may facilitate help-seeking among individuals deterred by stigma.

Objective Persistent vulvovaginal pain affects many women and often has adverse effects on sexual functioning. Psychological inflexibility related to pain is associated with distress and functional disability across different types of chronic pain conditions, but little is known about the role of psychological inflexibility in vulvovaginal pain. The present study examines psychological inflexibility related to pain as a predictor of sexual functioning over time among women with vulvovaginal pain. Methods Questionnaires including measures of psychological inflexibility, pain severity, and sexual functioning were administered to female university students at two points in time. One hundred thirty women with vulvovaginal pain responded to the questionnaire at baseline and at follow-up after 10 months. A multiple regression model was used to explore psychological inflexibility and pain severity as predictors of sexual functioning at follow-up. Results Higher levels of psychological inflexibility and more severe pain at baseline were associated with poorer sexual functioning 10 months later. In analysis adjusting for baseline levels of sexual functioning, psychological inflexibility was the only significant predictor of sexual functioning at follow-up. Conclusions The findings provide preliminary evidence that psychological inflexibility is associated with sexual adjustment over time among women with vulvovaginal pain and point to the relevance of further examinations of the psychological inflexibility model in the context of vulvovaginal pain.

Pain avoidance significantly predicted pain disability and depressive symptoms 3 years later. Although tentative, results warrant more studies to further explore the importance of pain avoidance for future health.