Digitally Assisted Standard Diagnostics in Insurance Medicine (DASDIM): psychometric data in psychiatric work disability evaluations

References

• AHV. Invalidenrenten der IV; 2022. p. 1–20. Available from: https://www.ahv-iv.ch/p/4.01.d
   Google Scholar
• Baumberg Geiger B, Garthwaite K, Warren J, et al. Assessing work disability for social security benefits: international models for the direct assessment of work capacity. Disabil Rehabil. 2018;40(24):2962–2970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dell-Kuster S, Lauper S, Koehler J, et al. Assessing work ability – a cross-sectional study of interrater agreement between disability claimants, treating physicians, and medical experts. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2014;40(5):493–501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inclusion Handicap. Meldestelle zu den IV-Gutachten [Registration portal for disability evaluations]; 2021. Available from: https://www.inclusion-handicap.ch/de/themen/invalidenversicherung-%0A(iv)/meldestelle-484.html
   Google Scholar
• Marelli R. Zur Entstehung der Leitlinien im deutschsprachigen Raum und speziell in der Schweiz [On the development of the guidelines in German-speaking countries and especially in Switzerland]. Schweizerische Ärztezeitung. 2004;85:1045–1047.
   Google Scholar
• Ebner G, Colomb E, Mager R, et al. Qualitätsleitlinien für versicherungspsychiatrische Gutachten [Quality guidelines for insurance psychiatric reports]. Bern: Schweizerische Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie SGPP Leitlinien für die Begutachtung psychiatrischer und psychosomatischer Störungen in der Versicherungsmedizin; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel H. Qualitätssicherung der sozialmedizinischen Begutachtung [Quality assurance of socio-medical assessments]. Berlin: Deutsche Rentenversicherung; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Hermelink M, Kocher R. Versicherungsmedizinische Qualitätssicherung in der Invalidenversicherung [Insurance medical quality assurance in disability insurance]. In: SGVP-Jahreskolloquium; 2021 Jan 29; 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Eidgenössisches Departement des Innern EDI. SuisseMED@P Reporting 2019. Bern: Eidgenössisches Departement des Innern EDI; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Pizala H. In: Escorpizo R, Brage S, Homa D, et al., editors. Qualitative Evaluation von psychiatrischen Gutachten unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des methodischen Vorgehens der Gutachter [Qualitative evaluation of psychiatric assessments in consideration of the methodological rater’s approach]. Inaugural disserat. Basel: Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Deutsche Rentenversicherung. Leitlinien für die sozialmedizinische Begutachtung. Berlin; 2018. Available from: https://www.deutsche-rentenversicherung.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Experten/infos_fuer_aerzte/begutachtung/leitlinie_sozialmed_beurteilung_abhaengigkeitserkrankungen.pdf?__blob = publicationFile&v = 4
   Google Scholar
• AWMF. Teil I Gutachtliche Untersuchung bei psychischen und psychosomatischen Störungen. Günzburg: AWMF; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Linden M, Baron S. Das “Mini-ICF-Rating für Psychische Störungen (Mini-ICF-APP)”. Ein Kurzinstrument zur Beurteilung von Fähigkeitsstörungen bei psychischen Erkrankungen [The “Mini-ICF Rating for Mental Disorders (Mini-ICF-APP)”. A brief instrument for the assessment of incapacity disorders in mental illness]. Rehabilitation. 2005;44(3):144–151.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Linden M, Baron S, Muschalla B. Mini-ICF-Rating für Aktivitäts- und Partizipationsbeeinträchtigungen bei psychischen Erkrankungen [Mini-ICF rating for activity and participation impairments in mental illness – manual]. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Ebner G. ICF und Begutachtung in der Psychiatrie [ICF and psychiatric evaluations]. Medinfo. 2018;2:16–26.
   Google Scholar
• Jeger J, Trezzini B, Schwegler U. Applying the ICF in disability evaluation: a report based on clinical experience. In: Escorpizo R, Brage S, Homa D, Stucki G, editors. Handbook of vocational rehabilitation and disability evaluation: application and implementation of the ICF. Cham: Springer; 2015. p. 397–410.
   Google Scholar
• Habermeyer B, Kaiser S, Kawohl W, et al. Assessment of incapacity to work and the Mini-ICF-APP. Neuropsychiatrie. 2017;31(4):182–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosburg T, Kunz R, Trezzini B, et al. The assessment of capacity limitations in psychiatric work disability evaluations by the social functioning scale Mini-ICF-APP. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21(1):480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders DSM-IV R. Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Guy W. Clinical global impressions. Rockville (MD): U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; Public Health Service; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Jahn T, Beitlich D, Hepp S, et al. Drei Sozialformeln zur Schätzung des (prämorbiden) Intelligenzquotienten nach Wechsler [Three social formulas for estimating the premorbid IQ according to Wechsler]. Zeitschrift für Neuropsychol. 2013;24(1):7–24.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmermann P, Fimm B. Testbatterie zur Aufmerksamkeitsprüfung (TAP). Version 2.3 [Test of attentional performance, version 2.3]. Herzogenrath: PSYTEST; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–699.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petermann F. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – fourth edition (WAIS-IV). German version. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Morfeld M, Kirchberger I, Bulliger M. Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand – SF-36 [Short form (36) health survey]. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Üstün TB, Chatterji S, Kostanjsek N, et al. Developing the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88(11):815–823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ilmarinen J. The Work Ability Index (WAI). Occup Med. 2006;57(2):160.
   Google Scholar
• Schaarschmidt U. AVEM: Ein Instrument zur interventionsbezogenen Diagnostik beruflichen Bewältigungsverhaltens [An instrument for the intervention-related diagnosis of professional coping behavior]. In: Arbeitskreis Klinische Psychologie in der Rehabilitation BDP, editor. Psychologische Diagnostik – Weichenstellung für den Reha-Verlauf; 2006. p. 59–82.
   Google Scholar
• von Zerssen D, Petermann F. Münchener Persönlichkeitstest (MPT) [Munich Personality Inventory]. Bern: Huber; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Porath Y, Tellegen A. Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory – restructured form: manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minnesota: University of Minnesota; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Engel R. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 2 Restructured Form™. German Version. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Dohrenbusch R, Pielsticker A. Psychologische Begutachtung von Personen mit chronischen Schmerzen [Psychological assessment of people with chronic pain]. In: Kröner-Herwig B, Frettlöh J, Klinger R, et al., editors. Schmerzpsychotherapie. Heidelberg: Springer US; 2017. p. 251–273.
   Google Scholar
• Team RC. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna; 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett M. A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximation. J R Stat Soc. 1954;16:296–298.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser H. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika. 1970;35(4):401–415.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 1966;1(2):245–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stekhoven DJ, Bühlmann P. MissForest—non-parametric missing value imputation for mixed-type data. Bioinformatics. 2012;28(1):112–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press; 1969.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson JTE. Measures of effect size. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 1996;28(1):12–22.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press; 1988.
   Google Scholar
• Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale for schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull. 1987;13(2):261–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sellbom M, Bagby RM, Kushner S, et al. Diagnostic construct validity of MMPI-2 restructured form (MMPI-2-RF) scale scores. Assessment. 2012;19(2):176–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee TTC, Graham JR, Arbisi PA. The utility of MMPI-2-RF Scale Scores in the differential diagnosis of schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. J Pers Assess. 2018;100(3):305–312.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner MI. Measuring alertness. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2008;1129:193–199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley A. Working memory: theories, models, and controversies. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012;63:1–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson JTE. Measures of short-term memory: a historical review. Cortex. 2007;43(5):635–650.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Squire LR, Zola SM. Structure and function of declarative and nondeclarative memory systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996;93(24):13515–13522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schaarschmidt U, Fischer A. AVEM Arbeitsbezogenes Verhaltens- und Erlebensmuster [Work-related behavior and experience patterns]. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Volkert J, Gablonski TC, Rabung S. Prevalence of personality disorders in the general adult population in Western countries: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry. 2018;213(6):709–715.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barth J, De Boer WEL, Busse JW, et al. Inter-rater agreement in evaluation of disability: systematic review of reproducibility studies. BMJ. 2017;356:j14–j12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kunz R, Von Allmen DY, Marelli R, et al. The reproducibility of psychiatric evaluations of work disability: two reliability and agreement studies. BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19(1):15.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dickmann JRM, Broocks A. Das psychiatrische Gutachten im Rentenverfahren – wie reliabel? [Psychiatric expert opinion in case of early retirement – how reliable?] Fortschr Neurol Psychiatr. 2007;75(7):397–401.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darius S, Hohmann CB, Siegel L, et al. Assessment of psychological stress in kindergarten teachers with varying degrees of overcommitment. Psychiatr Prax. 2021;49(2):89–98.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Violanti JM, Mnatsakanova A, Andrew ME, et al. Effort–reward imbalance and overcommitment at work: associations with police burnout. Police Q. 2018;21(4):440–460.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahola K, Gould R, Virtanen M, et al. Occupational burnout as a predictor of disability pension: a population-based cohort study. Occup Environ Med. 2009;66(5):284–290.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bethge M, Gutenbrunner C, Neuderth S. Work ability index predicts application for disability pension after work-related medical rehabilitation for chronic back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(11):2262–2268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roelen CAM, Van Rhenen W, Groothoff JW, et al. Work ability as prognostic risk marker of disability pension: single-item work ability score versus multi-item work ability index. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2014;40(4):428–431.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jääskeläinen A, Kausto J, Seitsamo J, et al. Work ability index and perceived work ability as predictors of disability pension: a prospective study among Finnish municipal employees. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2016;42(6):490–499.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebrenz M, Schleifer R, Canela C, et al. Qualität psychiatrischer Gutachten Abklärungstiefe im Fokus [Quality of psychiatric reports – depth of the diagnostic assessment focused]. InFo Neurol Psychiatr. 2014;12:2–6.
   Google Scholar
• Gaskin CJ, Happell B. On exploratory factor analysis: a review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51(3):511–521.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. Int J Test. 2005;5(2):159–168.
   Google Scholar