Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Before arrival to the laboratory, participants received several self-report questionnaires, including questionnaires assessing SA. Participants who scored below the accepted cut-off for clinical range or above the cut-off for diagnosis for SAD (Baer and Blais, 2010) on a self-assessment measure of SA (Fresco et al, 2001) were invited to participate in the study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Before arrival to the laboratory, participants received several self-report questionnaires, including questionnaires assessing SA. Participants who scored below the accepted cut-off for clinical range or above the cut-off for diagnosis for SAD (Baer and Blais, 2010) on a self-assessment measure of SA (Fresco et al, 2001) were invited to participate in the study.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In 1977, Landis and Koch [5] proposed the frequently used thresholds: values ≥0.75 are excellent; values between 0.40 and 0.75 indicate fair to good reliability, and values ≤0.40 indicate poor reliability. More recently, Baer and Blais [6] suggested that κ-values >0.70 are excellent; values between 0.60 and 0.70 are good; values between 0.41 and 0.59 are questionable, and values ≤0.40 are poor. Considering these standards, the norms used in the DSM-5 field trial are unacceptably generous.…”
Section: Tablementioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, the clinician-rated Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) was developed in the late 1970s to measure the severity of depression in clinical settings (Montgomery & Asberg, 1979). Because this scale was never updated or modified, it does not target reverse neurovegetative symptoms (Cusin et al, 2010). Moreover, Self-rating scales, such as the BDI, offer some advantages over clinician-rated scales, as they may take less time, do not require trained personnel, and their administration and scoring process appear more standardized (Biggs, Wylie, & Ziegler, 1978).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%