The objectives of this study are to develop a brief self-rated screening instrument for generalized social anxiety disorder (GSAD) and to test the efficiency of the instrument. The Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN), a 17-item self-administered scale for GSAD, was given to 263 individuals with GSAD and controls. A subset of three items yielding high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of GSAD was identified. This abbreviated version of the SPIN (Mini-SPIN) was administered to a group of managed care patients in conjunction with an epidemiological study of GSAD. Patients (n = 7,165) were sent a questionnaire comprising the Mini-SPIN and a brief depression screener. Respondents screening positive for GSAD on the Mini-SPIN (n = 344) were interviewed using the social phobia module of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) to verify the diagnosis. A random sample of those who screened negative for GSAD on the Mini-SPIN were administered a similar interview to identify two control groups without GSAD for comparison (n = 673). With this information, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the Mini-SPIN were determined (weighted for sampling). Using a cutoff score of 6 or greater, the Mini-SPIN demonstrated a sensitivity of 88.7%, specificity of 90.0%, positive predictive value of 52.5%, and negative predictive value of 98.5%. The scale possessed 90% accuracy (efficiency) in diagnosing the presence or absence of GSAD in a managed care population. The Mini-SPIN demonstrates good efficiency, supporting its utility as a screening tool for generalized social anxiety disorder.

Background: Recent factor-analytic studies in obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) identified consistent symptom dimensions. Support for the validity of these dimensions comes from studies of psychiatric comorbidity, functional brain imaging, genetic transmission, and treatment response to medications. This study examined whether previously identified OCD symptom dimensions are associated with treatment compliance and response to behaviour therapy (BT) for OCD. Methods: One hundred and fifty-three OCD outpatients who participated in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of computer- versus clinician-guided BT for OCD were included in the study. Logistic and multiple regression models tested for significant predictors of compliance with and response to BT and relaxation. Results: The patients studied were phenomenologically comparable (including the presence of ‘pure’ obsessions and mental rituals) to those in previous serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) trials and those in clinical epidemiology studies. High scorers on the ‘hoarding’ dimension were more likely to drop out prematurely from the study and tended to improve less. For those completing treatment, the strongest predictor of outcome was pre-treatment severity. Initial depression scores were unrelated to outcome. After controlling for symptom severity, higher scores on the ‘sexual/religious obsessions’ factor predicted poorer outcome with BT, especially when computer-guided. Conclusions: BT is especially indicated for OCD patients with aggressive/checking, contamination/cleaning and symmetry/ordering symptoms. Previous accounts of unsuccessful BT in patients with hoarding symptoms may be due in part to their propensity to drop out earlier from treatment. Patients with sexual/religious obsessions, but not those with mental rituals, might respond less well to traditional BT techniques. Existing treatments need to be refined and/or new treatments developed to improve these patients’ adherence and response to treatment.

Use of the SIGMA can result in high reliability of MADRS scores in evaluating patients with depression.

No abstract

This report describes the GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (GRID-HAMD), an improved version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale that was developed through a broad-based international consensus process. The GRID-HAMD separates the frequency of the symptom from its intensity for most items, refines several problematic anchors, and integrates both a structured interview guide and consensus-derived conventions for all items. Usability was established in a small three-site sample of convenience, evaluating 29 outpatients, with most evaluators finding the scale easy to use. Test-retest (4-week) and interrater reliability were established in 34 adult outpatients with major depressive disorder, as part of an ongoing clinical trial. In a separate study, interrater reliability was found to be superior to the Guy version of the HAMD, and as good as the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (SIGH-D), across 30 interview pairs. Finally, using the SIGH-D as the criterion standard, the GRID-HAMD demonstrated high concurrent validity. Overall, these data suggest that the GRID-HAMD is an improvement over the original Guy version as well as the SIGH-D in its incorporation of innovative features and preservation of high reliability and validity.

In a community cohort of HMO members, generalized social anxiety disorder was rarely diagnosed or treated despite being highly prevalent and associated with significant direct and indirect costs, comorbid depression, and impairment.

A self-report, paper-and-pencil version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS; M. Hamilton, 1960) was developed. This measure, the Hamilton Depression Inventory (HDI; W. M. Reynolds & K. A. Kobak, 1995) consists of a 23-item full form, a 17-item form, and a 9-item short form. The 17-item HDI form corresponds in content and scoring to the standard 17-item HDRS. With a sample of psychiatric outpatients with major depression (n = 140), anxiety disorders (n = 99), and nonreferred community adults (n = 118), the HDI forms demonstrated high levels of reliability (r a = .91 to .94, r tt = .95 to .96). Extensive validity evidence was presented, including content, criterionrelated, construct, and clinical efficacy of the HDI cutoff score. Overall, the data support the reliability and validity of the HDI as a self-report measure of severity of depression. Depression is one of the most prevalent mental health problems in the United States (Kessler et al., 1994; Regier et al., 1988), with 1-month prevalence rates ranging from 2% to 3% for major depression and over 6% for any form of affective disorder (Regier et al., 1993). The fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) reports a point-prevalence rate for major depression of between 5% and 9% for women and between 2% and 3% for men. For decades, mental health professionals have relied on semistructured clinical interviews and self-report measures for the

The goal of the study was to provide a quantitative analysis of the relative efficacy of all five currently available serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs) and behavior therapy [exposure and response prevention (ERP)] for obsessive compulsive disorder. The relationship between effect size and methodological characteristics was also empirically examined. A search was conducted of several computerized databases covering the dates from 1973 to 1997. Seventy-seven studies were identified, yielding 106 treatment comparisons involving 4641 patients. Effect sizes were analyzed between individual interventions and between intervention class [SRI, ERP or the combined treatment of an SRI with ERP(ERP/SRI)]. Data were analyzed both before and after controlling for methodological variables. The effect size for clomipramine (CMI) was significantly greater than the other SRIs, with the exception of fluoxetine (FLX). CMI was not significantly greater than ERP or ERP/SRI. As a class, ERP was significantly greater than SRIs as a whole. Effect sizes were larger for studies without a control group or random assignment, for self-reported outcome measures, and varied significantly by method of effect size calculation. Year of publication was significantly related to effect size. When controlling for these methodological variables, CMI was not significantly greater than FLX or fluvoxamine (FLV), and ERP was no longer significantly greater than the SRIs as a whole. No significant difference was found between CMI and the other SRIs as a group in head to head trials. No differences in drop-out rates were found. CMI stands out from the other SRIs. This difference is probably not clinically significant enough to warrant first choice treatment, given CMI's greater lethality in overdose. The choice between an SRI or ERP is dominated primarily by the infrequent availability of ERP and to a lesser degree by personal preference. Methodological differences significantly impact effect size.