Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40710033›Full record

ReviewClinics and practice2025

Rethinking the Subjective Units of Distress Scale: Validity and Clinical Utility of the SUDS.

Elizabeth Mattera, Brian Zaboski

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinics and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elizabeth MatteraYale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4992-2300
Brian ZaboskiYale School of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06510, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4567-8694

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS) is a widely used self-report measure clinicians rely on during exposure and response prevention (ERP) to monitor progress, guide exposure pacing, and assess intervention efficacy. However, despite its ubiquity in clinical and research settings, foundational investigations of its psychometrics are often atheoretical, fail to evaluate its longitudinal properties, and lack a rigorous construct validation framework. This paper addresses these shortcomings by evaluating the SUDS as a measure of state negative affective intensity using the Strong Program of Construct Validation. Our evaluation demonstrates that the SUDS suffers from significant psychometric weaknesses, including construct underrepresentation, construct irrelevance, poorly defined measurement occasions, and structural limitations, challenging its validity as a precise measure of subjective distress. These limitations have crucial implications for clinical practice, potentially leading to misinterpretations of patient distress and compromising treatment decisions. We discuss these clinical implications, highlight them with a brief clinical vignette, outline a research roadmap for potential improvement using modern psychometric methods, and provide practical recommendations for clinicians currently using the SUDS. Given these validity concerns, caution is warranted when interpreting SUDS scores in both clinical and research contexts until its psychometric properties are more robustly established and understood.

Indexed as

affect measurementclinical assessmentconstruct validationexposure therapypsychometric propertiessubjective units of distress scaleSUDSvalidity

Identifiers

PMID40710033
PMCPMC12293913

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.