Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 6:13:859478.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.859478. eCollection 2022.

Screening for Distress in Oncological Patients: The Revised Version of the Psychological Distress Inventory (PDI-R)

Alessandro Alberto Rossi  1   2 , Maria Marconi  3 , Federica Taccini  2 , Claudio Verusio  3 , Stefania Mannarini  1   2
Affiliations

Screening for Distress in Oncological Patients: The Revised Version of the Psychological Distress Inventory (PDI-R)

Alessandro Alberto Rossi et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

Background: Psychological research in oncological settings is steadily increasing and the construct of psychological distress has rapidly gained popularity-leading to the development of questionnaires aimed at its measurement. The Psychological Distress Inventory (PDI) is one of the most used instruments, but its psychometric properties were not yet deeply evaluated. The present studies aimed at investigating the psychometric properties of the PDI (Study 1) and providing a revised version of the tool (Study 2).

Methods: Oncological outpatients were enrolled at the Department of Medical Oncology of the Presidio Ospedaliero of Saronno, ASST Valle Olona, Italy. For the first study (N = 251), an Exploratory Graph Analysis was used to explore the item structure of the PDI. In the second study (N = 902), the psychometric properties of the revised PDI (PDI-R) were deeply assessed.

Results: Study 1 showed that the PDI has a not clear structure and it should be reconsidered. On the opposite, Study 2 showed that the revised version (PDI-R) has a solid factorial structure, it is invariant across gender and age, and it has good psychometric properties.

Conclusion: Results suggest that the PDI-R is a reliable measure of psychological distress in different samples of oncological patients, with stronger psychometric properties than the original version. Its use in the clinical and research field is therefore recommended to improve the quality of both assessment and treatment of psychological distress in patients with oncological problems.

Keywords: distress; distress thermometer; oncology; palliative care; psycho-onchology; psycho-oncological care; psycho-oncological distress; psychological distress.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Study 1. Exploratory graph analysis (EGA) of the Psychological Distress Inventory.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Study 2. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and factor loadings. All p-values are less than 0.001. Absolute values of standardized factor loading (|λ|) are reported.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Study 2. ROC curves analysis. HADS cut-offs (A: moderate distress; B: severe distress) and the DT cut-off (C). x-axis: 1-specificity; y-axis: sensitivity; AUC = area under the (ROC) curve.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. AIRTUM Working Group (2021). I numeri del Cancro in Italia 2021. Milan: AIOM.
    1. Amadori D., Bellani M. L., Bruzzi P., Casali P. G., Grassi L., Morasso G., et al. (2002). Psiconcologia. Milano: Masson.
    1. Annunziata M. A., Muzzatti B., Altoé G. (2011). Defining hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) structure by confirmatory factor analysis: a contribution to validation for oncological settings. Ann. Oncol. 22 2330–2333. 10.1093/annonc/mdq750 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bentler P. M., Chou C. H. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociol. Methods Res. 16 78–117. 10.1177/0049124187016001004 - DOI
    1. Berchtold A. (2016). Test–retest: agreement or reliability? Methodol. Innov. 9:2059799116672875. 10.1177/2059799116672875 - DOI

LinkOut - more resources