While the Beck Depression Inventory I and II (hereon BDI) have been a mainstay in mental health assessment for many decades, a cursory review of survey-based “test use” studies in the 1990s finds that the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) was not initially a highly ranked test in the assessment of anxiety or psychopathology. To date, a review of the extant literature on the popularity of the Beck inventories in professional psychology training or practice settings has not been systematically analyzed, although Piotrowski and Gallant (Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36, 2009, 84) found the BAI the most visible anxiety scale in the research literature between 2000 and 2005. Yet, quite evident, the field of clinical assessment remains highly competitive with a proliferation of mental health scales and measures introduced, perennially, in both the professional and research literature. In addition, since the mid-1990s, regulatory restrictions (i.e., managed care directives) on the feasibility of providing multimethod assessment services has also been a potent headwind in professional practice. Thus, historically, the professional acceptance of the BDI and BAI remains somewhat opaque, in terms of degree of usage in both training and practice settings compared to other assessment instruments. Hence, the aim of the current study is to address this gap in the literature. To that end, the author identified, through an extensive literature review, survey-based studies with regard to personality assessment that reported on graduate-level training in psychological testing and test usage patterns from 1989–2017. This systematic search yielded 45 articles (including 1 dissertation study) which served as the data pool for the current review (Training settings, n = 10; Practice settings, n = 35). The analysis found that the BDI has been relied upon to at least a moderate degree in 21 of the 35 (60%) of the surveys of practice settings and in 7 of the 10 (70%) of the studies of academic/internship training. Although the BAI has not been as popular as the BDI historically, this review clearly indicated that since 2010, the BAI has made a pivotal shift toward professional acceptance in practice, generated much enthusiasm in internship training, and been embraced by clinical faculty. Reflecting this emergent popularity of the Beck inventories, the current review indicated that, overall, 10 of the 14 studies (71%) since 2010 reported that both the BDI/BAI have been: (a) recognized and relied upon to a high degree in both assessment training and practice, (b) a valuable clinical tool for mental health clinicians, and (c) considered the instruments of choice amongst the myriad of brief, self-report measures in the assessment of mood disorders. Potential competing factors, such as other established and newly introduced measures of anxiety and depression (e.g., GAD-7, PROMIS, PHQ, DASS-21) that may impact future trends regarding usage of the Beck inventories, were discussed. Furthermore, research efforts should investigate the common factor of negative affectivity reflected in the Beck inventories when differentiating depression and anxiety states in monitoring treatment outcomes.

中文翻译：

---

贝克清单（BDI，BAI）在心理学培训和实践中的地位：临床接受度的重大转变

虽然贝克抑郁量表 I 和 II（以下简称 BDI）几十年来一直是心理健康评估的中流砥柱，但对 1990 年代基于调查的“测试使用”研究的粗略回顾发现，贝克焦虑量表（BAI）并不是最初是评估焦虑或精神病理学的高排名测试。迄今为止，尽管 Piotrowski 和 Gallant (Journal of Instructional Psychology, 36, 2009, 84) 发现 BAI 在专业心理学培训或实践环境中的流行程度，但尚未对现有文献进行系统分析。 2000 年至 2005 年间研究文献中可见的焦虑量表。 然而，很明显，随着心理健康量表和措施的不断增加，临床评估领域仍然竞争激烈，常年，在专业和研究文献中。此外，自 1990 年代中期以来，对提供多方法评估服务可行性的监管限制（即管理式医疗指令）也一直是专业实践中的强大阻力。因此，从历史上看，与其他评估工具相比，在培训和实践环境中的使用程度方面，BDI 和 BAI 的专业接受度仍然有些不透明。因此，当前研究的目的是解决文献中的这一空白。为此，作者通过广泛的文献综述确定了基于调查的人格评估研究，这些研究报告了 1989 年至 2017 年心理测试和测试使用模式的研究生水平培训。该系统搜索产生了 45 篇文章（包括 1 篇论文研究），作为当前审查的数据池（培训设置，n = 10；实践设置，n = 35）。分析发现，在 35 项实践环境调查中的 21 项（60%）和 10 项学术/实习培训研究中的 7 项（70%）至少依赖 BDI。虽然 BAI 在历史上并不像 BDI 那样受欢迎，但这次审查清楚地表明，自 2010 年以来，BAI 在实践中向专业接受度转变，在实习培训中产生了很大的热情，并受到临床教师的欢迎。反映贝克清单的这种新兴流行，当前的审查表明，总体而言，自 2010 年以来的 14 项研究中有 10 项 (71%) 报告称，BDI/BAI 都：(a) 在评估培训和实践中得到高度认可和依赖，(b) 对心理健康临床医生来说是一种宝贵的临床工具，和 (c) 考虑了在评估情绪障碍的无数简短的自我报告措施中选择的工具。讨论了可能影响贝克清单使用未来趋势的潜在竞争因素，例如其他已建立和新引入的焦虑和抑郁指标（例如 GAD-7、PROMIS、PHQ、DASS-21）。此外，当在监测治疗结果时区分抑郁和焦虑状态时，研究工作应该调查贝克量表中反映的负面情感的共同因素。(a) 在评估培训和实践中得到高度认可和依赖，(b) 对心理健康临床医生来说是一种宝贵的临床工具，以及 (c) 考虑在无数简短的自我报告措施中选择工具情绪障碍的评估。讨论了可能影响贝克清单使用未来趋势的潜在竞争因素，例如其他已建立和新引入的焦虑和抑郁指标（例如 GAD-7、PROMIS、PHQ、DASS-21）。此外，当在监测治疗结果时区分抑郁和焦虑状态时，研究工作应该调查贝克量表中反映的负面情感的共同因素。(a) 在评估培训和实践中得到高度认可和依赖，(b) 对心理健康临床医生来说是一种宝贵的临床工具，以及 (c) 考虑在无数简短的自我报告措施中选择工具情绪障碍的评估。讨论了可能影响贝克清单使用未来趋势的潜在竞争因素，例如其他已建立和新引入的焦虑和抑郁指标（例如 GAD-7、PROMIS、PHQ、DASS-21）。此外，当在监测治疗结果时区分抑郁和焦虑状态时，研究工作应该调查贝克量表中反映的负面情感的共同因素。(c) 考虑了在评估情绪障碍的无数简短的自我报告措施中选择的工具。讨论了可能影响贝克清单使用未来趋势的潜在竞争因素，例如其他已建立和新引入的焦虑和抑郁指标（例如 GAD-7、PROMIS、PHQ、DASS-21）。此外，当在监测治疗结果时区分抑郁和焦虑状态时，研究工作应该调查贝克量表中反映的负面情感的共同因素。(c) 考虑了在评估情绪障碍的无数简短的自我报告措施中选择的工具。讨论了可能影响贝克清单使用的未来趋势的潜在竞争因素，例如其他已建立和新引入的焦虑和抑郁指标（例如 GAD-7、PROMIS、PHQ、DASS-21）。此外，当在监测治疗结果时区分抑郁和焦虑状态时，研究工作应该调查贝克量表中反映的负面情感的共同因素。DASS-21）可能会影响贝克库存使用的未来趋势。此外，当在监测治疗结果时区分抑郁和焦虑状态时，研究工作应该调查贝克量表中反映的负面情感的共同因素。DASS-21）可能会影响贝克库存使用的未来趋势。此外，当在监测治疗结果时区分抑郁和焦虑状态时，研究工作应该调查贝克量表中反映的负面情感的共同因素。