The Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) is a 15-item self-report screening instrument for bipolar disorders in adults. The MDQ assesses lifetime history of manic and hypomanic symptoms based on DSM criteria, along with symptom clustering and functional impairment (Hirschfeld et al., 2000).
The Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) items assess a range of content reflecting the diverse symptom criteria for hypomania and mania, including elevated mood, increased energy and activity, grandiosity, decreased need for sleep, racing thoughts, distractibility, increased goal-directed activity, and impulsive or risky behaviour. Whilst the MDQ was originally designed as a unidimensional screening tool, subsequent factor analytic research has identified two distinct dimensions underlying the symptom items:
These dimensions show different patterns of associations with psychopathology and personality, with Positive Activation being specifically associated with bipolar disorder whilst Negative Activation is more broadly related to a range of conditions characterised by emotion dysregulation (Stanton & Watson, 2017; Carpenter et al., 2020).
In clinical practice, the MDQ can be used to identify individuals who may warrant further comprehensive assessment for bipolar disorder. This is particularly valuable because many patients with bipolar disorder present during depressive episodes and may not spontaneously report past hypomanic or manic symptoms. Early identification supports timely access to appropriate treatment, as effective interventions for bipolar disorder differ significantly from those for unipolar depression. The subscale structure also provides additional clinical utility by helping to differentiate between symptom profiles that may indicate bipolar disorder versus other conditions characterised by emotional instability and impulsivity.
The internal reliability for the Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ) is strong, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.88 reported by Stanton and Watson (2017) in a sample of 700 participants receiving psychiatric treatment. Carpenter et al. (2020) confirmed this two-factor structure in a larger clinical sample (N = 1,787), reporting good internal consistency for both the Positive Activation subscale (α = .82; 4 items) and the Negative Activation subscale (α = .73; 6 items). The latent correlation between the two factors was moderate (r = .45), indicating related but distinct dimensions.
Traditionally, a positive screen on the MDQ requires endorsement of 7 or more of 13 symptom items, multiple symptoms occurring at the same time, and symptoms causing notable psychosocial impairment (Hirschfeld et al., 2000). Under these conditions, the original validation study reported good sensitivity (73%) and very good specificity (90%) for bipolar disorder diagnosis. However, subsequent research has produced variable results depending on the clinical setting and population. A recent meta-analysis (Arbona-Lampaya et al., 2024) of 21 studies found that at the standard cutoff of 7 or more symptoms, summary sensitivity was .62 and summary specificity was .85 when pooled across studies. Sensitivity was notably higher when comparing bipolar disorder to unipolar depression (.76) but significantly reduced (.37) in studies excluding patients with known bipolar disorder, suggesting the MDQ performs best as a screening tool among mood disorder patients rather than as a general population case-finding instrument.
Research examining the MDQ’s associations with external validators has found that elevated scores are related to anxiety, trauma-related, substance use, eating, and impulse control disorders, in addition to bipolar disorder (Zimmerman et al., 2011; Paterniti & Bisserbe, 2018). This nonspecificity is largely attributable to the Negative Activation dimension, which shows strong positive associations with a range of psychopathology including depressive disorders, personality disorders, PTSD, generalised anxiety disorder, and substance use disorders. In contrast, Positive Activation is positively associated specifically with bipolar disorder diagnosis and shows negative associations with depressive disorders, PTSD, and some substance use disorders (Carpenter et al., 2020). This differential pattern of associations underscores the clinical value of examining subscale profiles rather than relying solely on total scores.
Recent large-scale research (Cantone et al., 2025) has highlighted ongoing debates about the MDQ’s diagnostic accuracy in community samples, with findings suggesting high specificity (96.2%) but low sensitivity (42.9%) for bipolar disorder detection.
Clinical percentiles are presented for the two subscales as developed by Carpenter et al. (2020) on over 1,700 outpatients presenting for treatment across a range of diagnoses. A percentile of 50 means that the client has scored at the average level compared with the clinical group for that subscale.
Bipolar disorder is frequently underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed, with research suggesting that individuals often wait years between symptom onset and receiving an accurate diagnosis. This delay occurs partly because many people seek help during depressive episodes rather than during elevated mood states, leading to misdiagnosis as unipolar depression. Misdiagnosis can result in inappropriate treatment, as interventions effective for unipolar depression may be less effective or even destabilising for bipolar disorder. Systematic screening helps identify individuals who may benefit from further assessment, supporting earlier access to appropriate treatment and potentially reducing the burden of illness over time.
Yes, bipolar spectrum presentations exist along a continuum. Some individuals experience hypomanic symptoms that fall short of the duration threshold for a formal hypomanic episode, or they may have significant mood instability that does not fit neatly into diagnostic categories. These subthreshold presentations can still cause distress and impairment and may benefit from further investigation.
The two subscales provide important information beyond the total score. Positive Activation (increased energy, grandiosity, decreased need for sleep) shows a specific association with bipolar disorder diagnosis and is less commonly elevated in other conditions. Negative Activation (irritability, racing thoughts, distractibility) is elevated across many disorders characterised by emotion dysregulation. When a client shows high Negative Activation with minimal Positive Activation, alternative explanations such as anxiety disorders, PTSD, borderline personality disorder, or ADHD could be considered.
The MDQ is particularly valuable when assessing clients who present with depressive symptoms, as bipolar disorder can often be misdiagnosed as unipolar depression. Many individuals with bipolar disorder seek treatment during depressive episodes and may not spontaneously report past hypomanic or manic experiences. The MDQ systematically screens for these lifetime symptoms, potentially identifying clients who require different treatment approaches. The subscale structure aids differential diagnosis by distinguishing between symptom patterns more specific to bipolar disorder (positive) versus those common across multiple conditions (negative).
Everyone experiences mood variation, but bipolar mood episodes are distinct in their intensity, duration, and impact on functioning. Normal mood changes are typically proportionate to circumstances, relatively brief, and do not substantially impair daily life. In contrast, manic or hypomanic episodes involve a noticeable departure from one’s usual self, with symptoms clustering together over a sustained period and often affecting sleep, energy, behaviour, and judgment in ways that others can observe. The MDQ asks whether symptoms occurred during the same time period and caused functional problems, helping to distinguish clinically significant episodes from everyday mood variability.
Hirschfeld, R. M. A., Williams, J. B. W., Spitzer, R. L., Calabrese, J. R., Flynn, L., Keck Jr, P. E., Lewis, L., McElroy, S. L., Post, R. M., Rapport, D. J., Russell, J. M., Sachs, G. S., & Zajecka, J. (2000). Development and validation of a screening instrument for bipolar spectrum disorder: The Mood Disorder Questionnaire. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(11), 1873-1875. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1873
Arbona-Lampaya, A., Sung, H., D’Amico, A., Knowles, E. E. M., Besançon, E. K., Freifeld, A., Lacbawan, L., Lopes, F., Kassem, L., Nardi, A. E., & McMahon, F. J. (2025). Heritability, phenotypic, and genetic correlations across dimensional and categorical models of bipolar disorder in a family sample. Journal of Affective Disorders, 372, 394–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.12.030
Cantone, E., Urban, A., Cossu, G., Atzeni, M., Fragoso Castilla, P. J., Giraldo Jaramillo, S., Carta, M. G., & Tusconi, M. (2025). The inaccuracy of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire for bipolar disorder in a community sample: From the “DYMERS” construct toward a new instrument for detecting vulnerable conditions. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 14(9), 3017. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14093017
Carpenter, R. W., Stanton, K., Emery, N. N., & Zimmerman, M. (2020). Positive and Negative Activation in the Mood Disorder Questionnaire: Associations With Psychopathology and Emotion Dysregulation in a Clinical Sample. Assessment, 27(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191119851574
Hirschfeld, R. M., Williams, J. B., Spitzer, R. L., Calabrese, J. R., Flynn, L., Keck, P. E., Jr, Lewis, L., McElroy, S. L., Post, R. M., Rapport, D. J., Russell, J. M., Sachs, G. S., & Zajecka, J. (2000). Development and validation of a screening instrument for bipolar spectrum disorder: The Mood Disorder Questionnaire. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(11), 1873–1875. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.157.11.1873
Mundy, J., Hübel, C., Adey, B. N., Davies, H. L., Davies, M. R., Coleman, J. R. I., Hotopf, M., Kalsi, G., Lee, S. H., McIntosh, A. M., Rogers, H. C., Eley, T. C., Murray, R. M., Vassos, E., & Breen, G. (2023). Genetic examination of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire and its relationship with bipolar disorder. American journal of medical genetics. Part B, Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 192(7-8), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.32938
Paterniti, S., Bisserbe, JC. Pharmacotherapy for bipolar disorder and concordance with treatment guidelines: Survey of a general population sample referred to a tertiary care service. BMC Psychiatry 13, 211 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-13-211
Stanton, K., & Watson, D. (2017). Explicating the structure and relations of the Mood Disorder Questionnaire: Implications for screening for bipolar and related disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 220, 72-78. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.jad.2017.05.046
Zimmerman, M., Galione, J. N., Chelminski, I., Young, D., & Dalrymple, K. (2011). Psychiatric diagnoses in patients who screen positive on the Mood Disorder Questionnaire: Implications for using the scale as a case-finding instrument for bipolar disorder. Psychiatry Research, 185(3), 444-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.06.025
