Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: Extracted From Regular and Change Versions of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia
01 Jan 1981-Archives of General Psychiatry (American Medical Association)-Vol. 38, Iss: 1, pp 98-103
TL;DR: The comparative reliability and the validity of the extracted HDRS score as a substitute for a realHDRS score was established and the correlation between the extracted and real HDRS scores was positive and large.
Abstract: • Investigators who wish to use new procedures usually wish to relate their results to those already in the literature. This often results in the use of both old and new measures. The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia Regular and Change Versions (SADS and SADS-C) have advantages over the widely used Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). A procedure was developed to extract the HDRS score from the SADS and SADS-C. The comparative reliability and the validity of the extracted HDRS score as a substitute for a real HDRS score was established. The SADS-C and the HDRS were completed by the raters for 48 subjects. The correlation between the extracted and real HDRS scores was positive and large.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: There was limited evidence of the specific effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy and none for cognitive behavior therapy, but Superior recovery rates were found for both interpersonal Psychotherapy and imipramine plusclinical management, as compared with placebo plus clinical management.
Abstract: • We investigated the effectiveness of two brief psychotherapies, interpersonal psychotherapy and cognitive behavior therapy, for the treatment of outpatients with major depressive disorder diagnosed by Research Diagnostic Criteria. Two hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned to one of four 16-week treatment conditions: interpersonal psychotherapy, cognitive behavior therapy, imipramine hydrochloride plus clinical management (as a standard reference treatment), and placebo plus clinical management. Patients in all treatments showed signifi-cant reduction in depressive symptoms and improvement in functioning over the course of treatment. There was a consistent ordering of treatments at termination, with imipramine plus clinical management generally doing best, placebo plus clinical management worst, and the two psychotherapies in between but generally closer to imipramine plus clinical management. In analyses carried out on the total samples without regard to initial severity of illness (the primary analyses), there was no evidence of greater effectiveness of one of the psychotherapies as compared with the other and no evidence that either of the psychotherapies was significantly less effective than the standard reference treatment, imipramine plus clinical management. Comparing each of the psychotherapies with the placebo plus clinical management condition, there was limited evidence of the specific effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy and none for cognitive behavior therapy. Superior recovery rates were found for both interpersonal psychotherapy and imipramine plus clinical management, as compared with placebo plus clinical management. On mean scores, however, there were few significant differences in effectiveness among the four treatments in the primary analyses. Secondary analyses, in which patients were dichotomized on intial level of severity of depressive symptoms and impairment of functioning, helped to explain the relative lack of significant findings in the primary analyses. Significant differences among treatments were present only for the subgroup of patients who were more severely depressed and functionally impaired; here, there was some evidence of the effectiveness of interpersonal psychotherapy with these patients and strong evidence of the effectiveness of imipramine plus clinical management. In contrast, there were no significant differences among treatments, including placebo plus clinical management, for the less severely depressed and functionally impaired patients.
2,171 citations
TL;DR: A test-retest reliability study conducted on a series of psychiatric inpatients demonstrated that the use of the SIGH-D results in a substantially improved level of agreement for most of the HDRS items.
Abstract: • The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) is the most widely used scale for patient selection and follow-up in research studies of treatments of depression. Despite extensive study of the reliability and validity of the total scale score, the psychometric characteristics of the individual items have not been well studied. In the only reliability study to report agreement on individual items using a test-retest interview method, most of the items had only fair or poor agreement. Because this is due in part to variability in the way the Information is obtained to make the various rating distinctions, the Structured Interview Guide for the HDRS (SIGH-D) was developed to standardize the manner of administration of the scale. A test-retest reliability study conducted on a series of psychiatric inpatients demonstrated that the use of the SIGH-D results in a substantially improved level of agreement for most of the HDRS items.
1,921 citations
TL;DR: Female subjects had significantly higher rates at all age levels for unipolar depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and adjustment disorders; male subjects had higher rates of disruptive behavior disorders.
Abstract: Data were collected on the point and lifetime prevalences, 1-year incidence, and comorbidity of depression with other disorders (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [3rd ed., rev.]) in a randomly selected sample (n = 1,710) of high school students at point of entry and at 1-year follow-up (n = 1,508). The Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children was used to collect diagnostic information; 9.6% met criteria for a current disorder, more than 33% had experienced a disorder over their lifetimes, and 31.7% of the latter had experienced a second disorder. High relapse rates were found for all disorders, especially for unipolar depression (18.4%) and substance use (15.0%). Female subjects had significantly higher rates at all age levels for unipolar depression, anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and adjustment disorders; male subjects had higher rates of disruptive behavior disorders.
1,746 citations
TL;DR: There is a high rate of relapse within 5 years of recovery from a first episode of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder, and this risk is diminished by maintenance antipsychotic drug treatment.
Abstract: Background We examined relapse after response to a first episode of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. Methods Patients with first-episode schizophrenia were assessed on measures of psychopathologic variables, cognition, social functioning, and biological variables and treated according to a standardized algorithm. The sample for the relapse analyses consisted of 104 patients who responded to treatment of their index episode and were at risk for relapse. Results Five years after initial recovery, the cumulative first relapse rate was 81.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.6%-93.2%); the second relapse rate was 78.0% (95% CI, 46.5%-100.0%). By 4 years after recovery from a second relapse, the cumulative third relapse rate was 86.2% (95% CI, 61.5%-100.0%). Discontinuing antipsychotic drug therapy increased the risk of relapse by almost 5 times (hazard ratio for an initial relapse, 4.89 [99% CI, 2.49-9.60]; hazard ratio for a second relapse, 4.57 [99% CI, 1.49-14.02]). Subsequent analyses controlling for antipsychotic drug use showed that patients with poor premorbid adaptation to school and premorbid social withdrawal relapsed earlier. Sex, diagnosis, obstetric complications, duration of psychotic illness before treatment, baseline symptoms, neuroendocrine measures, methylphenidate hydrochloride challenge response, neuropsychologic and magnetic resonance imaging measures, time to response of the initial episode, adverse effects during treatment, and presence of residual symptoms after the initial episode were not significantly related to time to relapse. Conclusions There is a high rate of relapse within 5 years of recovery from a first episode of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. This risk is diminished by maintenance antipsychotic drug treatment.
1,189 citations
TL;DR: Investigation of the ability of two depression scales to identify cases of DSM-III-R major depression and dysthymia in a large, community sample of high school students indicates that neither the BDI nor the CES-D should be used by themselves as methods for case ascertainment in either epidemiological or experimental studies.
Abstract: The ability of two depression scales, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), to identify cases of DSM-III-R major depression and dysthymia was investigated in a large, community sample of high school students. Receiver operating characteristics analyses indicated that different caseness criteria should be used for boys and girls for both the CES-D and the BDI. Internal consistency-reliability and sensitivity and specificity for detecting current episodes of current depression and dysthymia were adequate and comparable to those found with adult samples, but both the CES-D and the BDI generated many false positives. Multiple screening using the "serial" strategy increased positive predictive power substantially for both the CES-D and the BDI, whereas using the "parallel" strategy had very little effect on the efficacy of the two screeners. The results indicate that neither the BDI nor the CES-D should be used by themselves as methods for case ascertainment in either epidemiological or experimental studies, although the BDI does function somewhat better than the CES-D as a screener.
863 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a procedure for having two or more judges independently categorize a sample of units and determine the degree, significance, and significance of the units. But they do not discuss the extent to which these judgments are reproducible, i.e., reliable.
Abstract: CONSIDER Table 1. It represents in its formal characteristics a situation which arises in the clinical-social-personality areas of psychology, where it frequently occurs that the only useful level of measurement obtainable is nominal scaling (Stevens, 1951, pp. 2526), i.e. placement in a set of k unordered categories. Because the categorizing of the units is a consequence of some complex judgment process performed by a &dquo;two-legged meter&dquo; (Stevens, 1958), it becomes important to determine the extent to which these judgments are reproducible, i.e., reliable. The procedure which suggests itself is that of having two (or more) judges independently categorize a sample of units and determine the degree, significance, and
34,965 citations
TL;DR: The present scale has been devised for use only on patients already diagnosed as suffering from affective disorder of depressive type, used for quantifying the results of an interview, and its value depends entirely on the skill of the interviewer in eliciting the necessary information.
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.
29,488 citations
TL;DR: The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BRS) as mentioned in this paper was developed to provide a rapid assessment technique particularly suited to the evaluation of patient change, and it is recommended for use where efficiency, speed, and economy are important considerations.
Abstract: The Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale was developed to provide a rapid assessment technique particularly suited to the evaluation of patient change. Sixteen symptom constructs which have resulted from factor analyses of several larger sets of items, principally Lorr's Multidimensional Scale for Rating Psychiatric Patients (MSRPP) (1953) and Inpatient Multidimensional Psychiatric Scale (IMPS) (1960), have been included for rating on 7-point ordered category rating scales. The attempt has been to include a single scale to record degree of symptomacology in each of the relatively independent symptom areas which have been identified. Some of the preliminary work which has led to the identification of primary symptom constructs has been published (Gorham & Overall, 1960, 1961, Overall, Gorharn, & Shawver, 1961). While other reports are in preparation, applications of the Brief Scale in both pure and applied research suggest the importance of presenting the basic instrument to the wider scientific audience at this time, together with recommendations for its standard use. The primary purpose in developing the Brief Scale has been the development of a highly efficient, rapid evaluation procedure for use in assessing treatment change in psychiatric patients while at the same time yielding a rather comprehensive description of major symptom characteristics. It is recommended for use where efficiency, speed, and economy are important considerations, while more detailed evaluation procedures, such as those developed by Lorr (1953, 1961) should perhaps be wed in other cases. In order to achieve the maximum effectiveness in use of the Brief Scale, a standard interview procedure and more detailed description of rating concepts are included in this report. In addition, each symptom concept is defined briefly in the rating scale statements themselves. Raters using the scale should become thoroughly familiar with the scale definitions presented herein, after which the rating scale statements should be sufficient to provide recall of the nature and delineation of each symptom area. , To increase the reliability of ratings, it is recommended that patients be interviewed jointly by a team of two clinicians, with the two raters making independent ratings at the completion of the interview. An alternative procedure which has been recommended by some is to have raters discuss and arrive at a
10,457 citations
TL;DR: The general depression scales used were felt to be insufficient for the purpose of this research project and the more specific scales were also inadequate.
Abstract: The fact that there is a need for assessing depression, whether as an affect, a symptom, or a disorder is obvious by the numerous scales and inventories available and in use today. The need to assess depression simply and specifically as a psychiatric disorder has not been met by most scales available today. We became acutely aware of this situation in a research project where we needed to correlate both the presence and severity of a depressive disorder in patients with other parameters such as arousal response during sleep and changes with treatment of the depressive disorder. It was felt that the general depression scales used were insufficient for our purpose and that the more specific scales were also inadequate. These inadequacies related to factors such as the length of a scale or inventory being too long and too time consuming, especially for a patient
8,413 citations