Manual for the Benzodiazepine Dependence Questionnaire (BDEPQ)
Manual for the Benzodiazepine Dependence Questionnaire (BDEPQ) Manual for the Benzodiazepine Dependence Questionnaire (BDEPQ)
INTERPRETATION 7 a. Score most items as 0 1 2 3 b. except items 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 16, 17 and 23 which are reversed. Score these as 3 2 1 0 c. Score the second part (b) of two part items (items 10a & b, 18a & b, 20a & b, 21a & b) as 0 if the rst part (a) is scored 0. d. Ignore item 14a. e. Score item 11 as 3 No, it would be impossible 2 Perhaps, with a lot of di culty 1 Yes, with some di culty 0 Yes, without di culty 2. Sum the items to give a total score. 3. Optionally calculate subscale scores as follows a. sum items 1, 6, 7, 10a, 10b, 14b, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20a, 20b, 21a, and 22 to give a score on the General Dependence subscale. b. sum items 2, 13a, 13b, 18a, 18b, and 21b to give a score on the Pleasant E ects subscale. c. sum items 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 23, 24, and 25 to give a score on the Perceived Need subscale. Interpretation As the BDEPQ is under development, interpretation of scores should be undertaken with care. Only the most general interpretations can be made with any certainty. Interpretation of scores relative to the development sample can be achieved by comparison of an individuals score with the scores shown in Table 8 for restricted percentiles.
8 DEVELOPMENT In general higher scores are associated with greater risk of future withdrawal symptoms, of continued BZD use, and are more likely to be associated with positive CIDI diagnoses of BZD dependence. The following section on validity describes the evidence for these interpretations. Development Baillie (1992) developed the BDEPQ following a mail survey of BZD users recruited through media announcements. The methods used by Baillie (1992) to develop the BDEPQ are summarized in Baillie and Mattick (1994) and are described below. Description of the development sample 369 people were recruited through advertisements in newspapers and on the radio seeking long term users of BZDs to participate in research. Of these people 263 returned completed questionnaires from wave one. In addition four people were interviewed by phone but failed to return their questionnaires. Thus demographic information was available for 267 people. The following section describes these 267 participants and compares them with estimates of the population of BZD users from the National Health Survey (NHS) conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1991) between 1989 and 1990. Some of the questions used in the NHS interview (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1991) were asked of the sample recruited for Baillie (1992). This was done to enable comparison of the present sample to estimates of the population from which itwas drawn. For scale development purposes a representative sample is important to ensure that all levels of BZD dependence are covered. The generalizabilityofpsychometric information about the scale calculated from the present sample to other groups of BZD users is reduced if the sample is unrepresentative. Demographic characteristics The gender of the 267 people who were interviewed by phone or responded to the rst mailed questionnaire is shown in Table 1. The estimated proportion of BZD users in Australia who are womenisalsoshown for comparison. A chi square goodness-of- t test was used to examine the hypothesis that the gender of the sample was consistent with the sample being randomly drawn for the population of Australian BZD users. Signi cantly fewer women participated in the survey than would be expected if the sample was randomly drawn from the population of BZD users ( 2 1 =11:92�p < :05). The average age of the sample was 61:0 (sd =13:2� median =63�n = 268). Table 1 also shows a comparison of the age of sample with estimates of the age of BZD users in the Australian population from the National Health Survey. A greater percentage of the sample fall between the ages of 40 and 70 compared with
- Page 1 and 2: Manual for the Benzodiazepine Depen
- Page 3 and 4: List of Tables 1 Comparison of samp
- Page 5 and 6: 2 RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND Careful
- Page 7 and 8: 4 RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND BZD depe
- Page 9: 6 SCORING INSTRUCTIONS Many of the
- Page 13 and 14: 10 DEVELOPMENT Table 1: Comparison
- Page 15 and 16: 12 DEVELOPMENT NHS of the Australia
- Page 17 and 18: 14 DEVELOPMENT Table 3: Doses of BZ
- Page 19 and 20: 16 DEVELOPMENT CIDI diagnoses of BZ
- Page 21 and 22: 18 DEVELOPMENT BZD withdrawal sympt
- Page 23 and 24: 20 DEVELOPMENT Table 6: Neuroticism
- Page 25 and 26: 22 DEVELOPMENT than 0.4 were discar
- Page 27 and 28: 24 DEVELOPMENT Table 7: The results
- Page 29 and 30: 26 DEVELOPMENT Table 7: The results
- Page 31 and 32: 28 DEVELOPMENT Table 7: The results
- Page 33 and 34: 30 DEVELOPMENT Table 7: The results
- Page 35 and 36: 32 PROPERTIES OF BDEPQ TOTAL SCORES
- Page 37 and 38: 34 PROPERTIES OF BDEPQ TOTAL SCORES
- Page 39 and 40: 36 VALIDITY OF THE BDEPQ CIDI diagn
- Page 41 and 42: 38 VALIDITY OF THE BDEPQ Table 10:
- Page 43 and 44: 40 VALIDITY OF THE BDEPQ 2 model (G
- Page 45 and 46: 42 VALIDITY OF THE BDEPQ predictive
- Page 47 and 48: 44 MEASURES OF WITHDRAWAL 23 would
- Page 49 and 50: 46 MEASURES OF WITHDRAWAL Table 11:
- Page 51 and 52: 48 MEASURES OF WITHDRAWAL Table 11:
- Page 53 and 54: 50 MEASURES OF WITHDRAWAL Table 11:
- Page 55 and 56: 52 ACKNOWLEDGMENT on some structure
- Page 57 and 58: 54 REFERENCES References American P
- Page 59 and 60: 56 REFERENCES Edwards, G., & Gross,
INTERPRETATION 7<br />
a. Score most items as<br />
0 1 2 3<br />
b. except items 2, 5, 6, 9, 12, 16, 17 and 23 which are reversed. Score<br />
<strong>the</strong>se as<br />
3 2 1 0<br />
c. Score <strong>the</strong> second part (b) of two part items (items 10a & b, 18a & b,<br />
20a & b, 21a & b) as 0 if <strong>the</strong> rst part (a) is scored 0.<br />
d. Ignore item 14a.<br />
e. Score item 11 as<br />
3 No, it would be impossible<br />
2 Perhaps, with a lot of di culty<br />
1 Yes, with some di culty<br />
0 Yes, without di culty<br />
2. Sum <strong>the</strong> items to give a total score.<br />
3. Optionally calculate subscale scores as follows<br />
a. sum items 1, 6, 7, 10a, 10b, 14b, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20a, 20b, 21a, and 22<br />
to give a score on <strong>the</strong> General <strong>Dependence</strong> subscale.<br />
b. sum items 2, 13a, 13b, 18a, 18b, and 21b to give a score on <strong>the</strong> Pleasant<br />
E ects subscale.<br />
c. sum items 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 23, 24, and 25 to give a score on <strong>the</strong><br />
Perceived Need subscale.<br />
Interpretation<br />
As <strong>the</strong> <strong>BDEPQ</strong> is under development, interpretation of scores should be undertaken<br />
with care. Only <strong>the</strong> most general interpretations can be made with any<br />
certainty.<br />
Interpretation of scores relative to <strong>the</strong> development sample can be achieved by<br />
comparison of an individuals score with <strong>the</strong> scores shown in Table 8 <strong>for</strong> restricted<br />
percentiles.
Change language