METHOD: Our analysis is based on a large-scale research project involving 42 countries (International Sex Survey, N=72,627, 57% women, Mage=32.84; SDage=12.57).
RESULTS: The ASRS Screener demonstrated good reliability and validity, along with partial invariance across different languages, countries, and genders. The occurrence of being at risk for adult ADHD was relatively high (21.4% for women, 18.1% for men). The highest scores were obtained in the US, Canada, and other English-speaking Western countries, with significantly lower scores among East Asian and non-English-speaking European countries. Moreover, ADHD symptom severity and occurrence were especially high among gender-diverse individuals. Significant associations between adult ADHD symptoms and age, mental and sexual health, and socioeconomic status were observed.
CONCLUSIONS: Present results show significant cross-cultural variability in adult ADHD occurrence as well as highlight important factors related to adult ADHD. Moreover, the importance of further research on adult ADHD in previously understudied populations (non-Western countries) and minority groups (gender-diverse individuals) is stressed. Lastly, the present analysis is consistent with previous evidence showing low specificity of adult ADHD screening instruments and contributes to the current discussion on accurate adult ADHD screening and diagnosis.
METHODS: Using data from the International Sex Survey (N = 82,243; Mage = 32.39; SDage = 12.52; women: n = 46,874; 57 %), we examined the reliability of depression and anxiety symptom scores of the BSI-18, as well as evaluated evidence of construct, invariance, and criterion-related validity in predicting clinically relevant variables across countries, languages, genders, and sexual orientations.
RESULTS: Results corroborated an invariant, two-factor structure across all groups tested, exhibiting excellent reliability estimates for both subscales. The 'caseness' criterion effectively discriminated among those at low and high risk of depression and anxiety, yielding differential effects on the clinical criteria examined.
LIMITATIONS: The predictive validation was not made against a clinical diagnosis, and the full BSI-18 scale was not examined (excluding the somatization sub-dimension), limiting the validation scope of the BSI-18. Finally, the study was conducted online, mainly by advertisements through social media, ultimately skewing our sample towards women, younger, and highly educated populations.
CONCLUSIONS: The results support that the BSI-12 is a valid and reliable assessment tool for assessing depression and anxiety symptoms across countries, languages, genders, and sexual orientations. Further, its caseness criterion can discriminate well between participants at high and low risk of depression and anxiety.
STUDY DESIGN: The study design is a cross-sectional self-report study conducted across 42 countries.
METHODS: A cross-sectional, self-report study was conducted in 42 countries, with a total of 82,243 participants included in the final data set.
RESULTS: The study provides an overview of suicide ideation rates across 42 countries and confirms the structural validity of the P4 screener. The findings indicated that sexual and gender minority individuals exhibited higher rates of suicidal ideation. The P4 screener showed adequate reliability, convergence, and discriminant validity, and a cutoff score of 1 is recommended to identify individuals at risk of suicidal behavior.
CONCLUSIONS: The study supports the reliability and validity of the P4 suicide screener across 42 diverse countries, highlighting the importance of using a cross-cultural suicide risk assessment to standardize the identification of high-risk individuals and tailoring culturally sensitive suicide prevention strategies.