1989
DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.1.3.238
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A structured interview version of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: Reliability and validity.

Abstract: Preparing Manuscripts. Authors should prepare manuscripts according to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (3rd ed.). Typing instructions (all copy must be double-spaced) and instructions on preparing tables, figures, references, metrics, and abstracts appear in the Manual. Also, all manuscripts are subject to editing for sexist language. For more information, refer to Alan E. Kazdin's editorial in the March issue (pp. 3-5).

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
31
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 44 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
(16 reference statements)
1
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Both measures are standard and well-validated. The HRSD has been used extensively in MDD treatment studies (Keller, 2003), with inter-rater reliabilities of .78 - .91 and convergent validities of .73 - .86 in depressed female samples (Rehm & Ohara, 1985; Whisman et al, 1989). The TLFB has excellent reliability (Sobell & Sobell, 1978) and validity for alcohol (Sobell et al, 1980; Sobell et al, 1979) and drug use (Fals-Stewart et al, 2000; Sobell et al, 1996), and is sensitive to change as used in this study (Babor et al, 1987; Sobell et al, 1986).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Both measures are standard and well-validated. The HRSD has been used extensively in MDD treatment studies (Keller, 2003), with inter-rater reliabilities of .78 - .91 and convergent validities of .73 - .86 in depressed female samples (Rehm & Ohara, 1985; Whisman et al, 1989). The TLFB has excellent reliability (Sobell & Sobell, 1978) and validity for alcohol (Sobell et al, 1980; Sobell et al, 1979) and drug use (Fals-Stewart et al, 2000; Sobell et al, 1996), and is sensitive to change as used in this study (Babor et al, 1987; Sobell et al, 1986).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A recent meta-analytic study showed that the HRSD has good test-retest reliability (Mean r = .87), internal consistency (Mean α = .79), and inter-rater reliability (Mean r = .87) (Trajkovi ć et al, 2011), in addition to correlating highly with other established depression measures (Whisman et al, 1989). …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The HRSD has strong test-retest reliability of .81 (Williams, 1988). When compared with other measures of depression such as the Beck Depression Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Depression scale, it was shown to have good validity with correlations of .85 and .62, respectively (Whisman, Strosahl, Fruzzetti, Schmaling, Jacobsen, & Miller, 1989). Clinical cutoff points for the HRSD are as follows: zero to seven = Normal; eight to 17 = Mild Depression; 18 to 24 Moderate Depression; >24 = Severe Depression (Cusin, Yang, Yeung, & Fava, 2004).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%