HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Turner-Stokes, L Articles by Clegg, F Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Turner-Stokes, L Articles by Clegg, F Topic Collections JNNP Patients' choice

The Depression Intensity Scale Circles (DISCs): a first evaluation of a simple assessment tool for depression in the context of brain injury

¹ Regional Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, Harrow, Middlesex, UK; King’s College London, UK
² Regional Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Professor Lynne Turner-Stokes
Regional Rehabilitation Unit, Northwick Park Hospital, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ, UK; lynne.turner-stokes{at}dial.pipex.com

Objective: To assess the validity, responsiveness, and test–retest reliability of DISCs (Depression Intensity Scale Circles) as a simple screening tool for depression in patients with cognitive or communicative deficits following acquired brain injury.

Design: Cohort analysis of consecutive patients entered into an integrated care pathway for screening and management of depression in the context of rehabilitation.

Setting: Regional neurological rehabilitation service in the UK.

Participants: 114 patients with complex disabilities caused by acquired brain injury (mean (SD) age, 42.8 (14.5) years).

Main outcome measures: DISCs (a graphic rating scale depicting six circles with increasing proportion of dark shading), Numbered Graphic Rating Scale (NGRS), Yale single question ("Do you often feel sad or depressed"), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), DSM-IV criteria for depression.

Results: At initial assessment the DISCs correlated with total BDI-II scores (Spearman = 0.66, p<0.001), NGRS ( = 0.87, p<0.001), and DSM-IV ( = 0.59, p<0.001). A DISCs score 2 identified depression (major or minor) according to DSM-IV criteria with 60% sensitivity, 87% specificity, 75% positive predictive value, and 77% negative predictive value. Test–retest reliability after 24 hours (n = 66) showed "excellent" level of agreement (weighted = 0.84). In 45 patients who received intervention for depression, the DISCs showed a significant change in response to treatment (Wilcoxon; p<0.001).

Conclusions: DISCs had acceptable convergent validity, reliability, and responsiveness as a simple graded tool for screening and assessment of depression in patients with complex disabilities following acquired brain injury. It warrants further investigation in patients with more profound language and cognitive deficits for which it is primarily intended.

Abbreviations: ABI, acquired brain injury; BDI, Beck Depression Inventory; DISCs, Depression Intensity Scale Circles; DSM, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders; FIM+FAM, Functional Independence Measure and Functional Assessment Measure; ICP, integrated care pathway; NGRS, Numbered Graphic Rating Scale

Keywords: depression assessment; acquired brain injury; validity; reliability