Max Hamilton

Bio: Max Hamilton is an academic researcher from University of Leeds. The author has contributed to research in topics: Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale & Rating scales for depression. The author has an hindex of 10, co-authored 46 publications receiving 35656 citations.

A rating scale for depression

Abstract: Types of Rating Scale The value of this one, and its limitations, can best be considered against its background, so it is useful to consider the limitations of the various rating scales extant. They can be classified into four groups, the first of which has been devised for use on normal subjects. Patients suffering from mental disorders score very highly on some of the variables and these high scores serve as a measure of their illness. Such scales can be very useful, but have two defects: many symptoms are not found in normal persons; and less obviously, but more important, there is a qualitative difference between symptoms of mental illness and normal variations of behaviour. The difference between the two is not a philosophical problem but a biological one. There is always a loss of function in illness, with impaired efficiency. Self-rating scales are popular because they are easy to administer. Aside from the notorious unreliability of self-assessment, such scales are of little use for semiliterate patients and are no use for seriously ill patients who are unable to deal with them. Many rating scales for behaviour have been devised for assessing the social adjustment of patients and their behaviour in the hospital ward. They are very useful for their purpose but give little or no information about symptoms. Finally, a number of scales have been devised specifically for rating symptoms of mental illness. They cover the whole range of symptoms, but such all-inclusiveness has its disadvantages. In the first place, it is extremely difficult to differentiate some symptoms, e.g., apathy, retardation, stupor. These three look alike, but they are quite different and appear in different settings. Other symptoms are difficult to define, except in terms of their settings, e.g., mild agitation and derealization. A more serious difficulty lies in the fallacy of naming. For example, the term "delusions" covers schizophrenic, depressive, hypochrondriacal, and paranoid delusions. They are all quite different and should be clearly distinguished. Another difficulty may be summarized by saying that the weights given to symptoms should not be linear. Thus, in schizophrenia, the amount of anxiety is of no importance, whereas in anxiety states it is fundamental. Again, a schizophrenic patient who has delusions is not necessarily worse than one who has not, but a depressive patient who has, is much worse. Finally, although rating scales are not used for making a diagnosis, they should have some relation to it. Thus the schizophrenic patients should have a high score on schizophrenia and comparatively small scores on other syndromes. In practice, this does not occur. The present scale has been devised for use only on patients already diagnosed as suffering from affective disorder of depressive type. It is used for quantifying the results of an interview, and its value depends entirely on the skill of the interviewer in eliciting the necessary information. The interviewer may, and should, use all information available to help him with his interview and in making the final assessment. The scale has undergone a number of changes since it was first tried out, and although there is room for further improvement, it will be found efficient and simple in use. It has been found to be of great practical value in assessing results of treatment.

The Leeds scales for the self-assessment of anxiety and depression.

Abstract: Self-rating scales are finding an increasing use in psychiatric work. Not only are they widely used in research, but they provide the clinician with a score indicating the patient's psychiatric state at any one time, and these scores if repeated throughout the duration of treatment may be considered to provide a continuing measure of the severity of the illness, as does a temperature chart in a febrile illness. Most scales could be improved by item analysis, and in this study the Wakefield Self-Assessment of Depression Inventory, with added items, was subjected to statistical analysis. It was found that valid scales could be constructed for the measurement of anxiety and of depression in general psychiatric disorders, as well as scales for the measurement of the severity of endogenous (primary) depression and of anxiety states. In addition, the derivation of a 'diagnostic' score was confirmed in a cross-validation study and may be found of use both in research and in clinical practice.

The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population

Abstract: The CES-D scale is a short self-report scale designed to measure depressive symptomatology in the general population. The items of the scale are symptoms associated with depression which have been used in previously validated longer scales. The new scale was tested in household interview surveys and in psychiatric settings. It was found to have very high internal consistency and adequate test- retest repeatability. Validity was established by pat terns of correlations with other self-report measures, by correlations with clinical ratings of depression, and by relationships with other variables which support its construct validity. Reliability, validity, and factor structure were similar across a wide variety of demographic characteristics in the general population samples tested. The scale should be a useful tool for epidemiologic studies of de pression.

The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: A new instrument for psychiatric practice and research.

Abstract: Despite the prevalence of sleep complaints among psychiatric patients, few questionnaires have been specifically designed to measure sleep quality in clinical populations. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) is a self-rated questionnaire which assesses sleep quality and disturbances over a 1-month time interval. Nineteen individual items generate seven "component" scores: subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, use of sleeping medication, and daytime dysfunction. The sum of scores for these seven components yields one global score. Clinical and clinimetric properties of the PSQI were assessed over an 18-month period with "good" sleepers (healthy subjects, n = 52) and "poor" sleepers (depressed patients, n = 54; sleep-disorder patients, n = 62). Acceptable measures of internal homogeneity, consistency (test-retest reliability), and validity were obtained. A global PSQI score greater than 5 yielded a diagnostic sensitivity of 89.6% and specificity of 86.5% (kappa = 0.75, p less than 0.001) in distinguishing good and poor sleepers. The clinimetric and clinical properties of the PSQI suggest its utility both in psychiatric clinical practice and research activities.

A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7

Abstract: Background Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. Methods A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. Results A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. Conclusion The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.

A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change.

Abstract: The construction of a depression rating scale designed to be particularly sensitive to treatment effects is described. Ratings of 54 English and 52 Swedish patients on a 65 item comprehensive psychopathology scale were used to identify the 17 most commonly occurring symptoms in primary depressive illness in the combined sample. Ratings on these 17 items for 64 patients participating in studies of four different antidepressant drugs were used to create a depression scale consisting of the 10 items which showed the largest changes with treatment and the highest correlation to overall change. The inner-rater reliability of the new depression scale was high. Scores on the scale correlated significantly with scores on a standard rating scale for depression, the Hamilton Rating Scale (HRS), indicating its validity as a general severity estimate. Its capacity to differentiate between responders and non-responders to antidepressant treatment was better than the HRS, indicating greater sensitivity to change. The practical and ethical implications in terms of smaller sample sizes in clinical trials are discussed.