1985
DOI: 10.1007/bf00386061
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dimensionen der Hamilton-Depressionsskala (HAMD)

Abstract: The results of factor analysis of HAMD are not unitary. Studying the stability in course and the independence of selection criteria for the population we rated two groups (n = 107, n = 98) of inpatients with HAMD; these groups differ in nosological selection criteria. We furthermore rated one group at different timepoints (before treatment and 3 weeks after). The one-factor-solution is the only stable one and the only one which is independent from selection criteria. In all groups the one-factor-solutions show… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
21
0
1

Year Published

2000
2000
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 52 publications
(22 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
21
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Low mood, a core symptom of depression, was assessed by a HAM-D subscale consisting of items 1 (Depressed Mood), 2 (Guilt), 3 (Suicide), 7 (Loss of Interest), and 10 (Anxiety). Somatic complaints were measured by a HAM-D subscale defined by the cluster of items 11 (Anxiety Somatic), 12 (Gastro-intestinal Symptoms), and 13 (General Symptoms) [30, 31]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low mood, a core symptom of depression, was assessed by a HAM-D subscale consisting of items 1 (Depressed Mood), 2 (Guilt), 3 (Suicide), 7 (Loss of Interest), and 10 (Anxiety). Somatic complaints were measured by a HAM-D subscale defined by the cluster of items 11 (Anxiety Somatic), 12 (Gastro-intestinal Symptoms), and 13 (General Symptoms) [30, 31]. …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As already laid out in our earlier paper (Volz et al 2000), the HAMA-SOM was selected as the primary outcome criterion, since (i) the HAMA and HAMA-SOM have proven to be sensitive measures for change (Maier et al 1985;Van Riezen and Segal 1998) and (ii) these scales are reliable and valid (Maier et al 1988;AMDP and CIPS, 1996). Neither sensitivity nor validity has been proven for scales more specifically constructed to detect somatic complaints (such as the Bradford Somatic Inventory, BSI; Mumford et al 1991).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of the HAMD-17 as a measure of outcome might be another limitation [30]. Although the HAMD-17 is the most commonly used rating scale for depression severity [30], the ability of the HAMD-17 in judging depression severity is still doubtful [31]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%