Exactly what does the Hamilton depression rating scale measure?

Gibbons, Robert D.; Clark, David; Kupfer, David J.

doi:10.1016/0022-3956(93)90037-3

Cited by 203 publications

(173 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

157

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The HRSD 17 had two factors, with 6-7 items not loading on either factor or loading on both factors. This is consistent with prior reports of the multidimensionality of the HRSD 17 and unidimensionality of the MADRS and the HRSD 6 (Bagby et al, 2004;Bech et al, 1992;Bech et al, 1997;Bech et al, 1984;Bech et al, 1981;Bech et al, 1975;Galinowski and Lehert, 1995;Gibbons et al, 1993;Hamilton, 1967;Maier et al, 1988;Rocca et al, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…The HRSD 17 has been found consistently to be multidimensional (Bech et al, 1981;Gibbons et al, 1993;Hamilton, 1967;Maier et al, 1988), which may reduce its sensitivity to detecting changes in depression severity or in differentiating between two treatments. Prior analyses of the HRSD 17 have identified specific problematic items in terms of response characteristics (Bagby et al, 2004;Santor and Coyne, 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Montgomery Äsberg and the Hamilton ratings of depression: A comparison of measures

Carmody

Rush

Bernstein

et al. 2006

European Neuropsychopharmacology

199

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD 17 ) and the Montgomery Äsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are two widely used clinicianrated symptom scales. A 6-item version of the HRSD (HRSD 6 ) was created by Bech to address the psychometric limitations of the HRSD 17 . The psychometric properties of these measures were compared using classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) methods. IRT methods were used to equate total scores on any two scales. Data from two distinctly different outpatient studies of nonpsychotic major depression: a 12-month study of highly treatment-resistant patients (n=233) and an 8-week acute phase drug treatment trial (n=985) were used for robustness of results.MADRS and HRSD 6 items generally contributed more to the measurement of depression than HRSD 17 items as shown by higher item-total correlations and higher IRT slope parameters. The MADRS and HRSD 6 were unifactorial while the HRSD 17 contained 2 factors. The MADRS showed about twice the precision in estimating depression as either the HRSD 17 or HRSD 6 for average severity of depression. An HRSD 17 of 7 corresponded to an 8 or 9 on the MADRS and 4 on the HRSD 6 .The MADRS would be superior to the HRSD 17 in the conduct of clinical trials.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Montgomery Äsberg and the Hamilton ratings of depression: A comparison of measures

Carmody

Rush

Bernstein

et al. 2006

European Neuropsychopharmacology

199

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Unlike these reports, this study deals with a questionnaire that was developed specifically within psychiatry and which was designed to evaluate symptoms of depression that follow from its DSM definition (American Psychiatric Association 2000). In that sense, it is related to the work of Gibbons et al (1993). The papers by Azocar and Iwata et al studied tests like the Beck Depression Inventory that have been more wisely used in nonclinical populations than the QIDS.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical vs. self-report versions of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology in a public sector sample

Bernstein

Rush

Carmody

et al. 2007

Journal of Psychiatric Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives-Recent work using classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) has found that the self-report ) and clinician-rated (QIDS-C 16 ) versions of the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology were generally comparable in outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (MDD). This report extends this comparison to a less welleducated, more treatment-resistant sample that included more ethnic/racial minorities using IRT and selected classical test analyses. 16 and QIDS-C 16 were obtained in a sample of 441 outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD seen in the public sector in the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP). The Samejima graded response IRT model was used to compare the QIDS-SR 16 and QIDS-C 16 . 16 and QIDS-C 16 related well to overall depression. The slopes of the item response functions a), which index the strength of relationship between overall depression and each symptom, were extremely similar with the two measures. Likewise, the CTT and IRT indices of symptom frequency (item means and locations of the item response functions, b i ) were also similar with these two measures. For example, sad mood and difficulty with concentration/decision making were highly related to the overall depression severity with both the QIDS-C 16 and QIDS-SR 16 . Likewise, sleeping difficulties were commonly reported, even though they were not as strongly related to overall magnitude of depression. Methods-The QIDS-SR Results-The nine symptom domains in the QIDS-SR Conclusion-In this less educated, socially disadvantaged sample, differences between the QIDS-C 16 and QIDS-SR 16 were minor. The QIDS-SR 16 is a satisfactory substitute for the more timeconsuming QIDS-C 16 in a broad range of adult, nonpsychotic, depressed outpatients. KeywordsQuick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology; Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology; Item response theory; Samejima graded response model; depressive symptoms OBJECTIVESThe accurate, rapid, and cost-efficient measurement of depressive symptoms serves both clinical and research purposes. Clinicians can gauge the benefit of treatment and make timely adjustments in the treatment plan. Research, on the other hand, can be made less costly if such measures are available. The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) is a 16-item scale that measures each of the nine symptom domains that define a major depressive , which defines depression as a latent trait, were employed. The particular IRT model we employed was developed by Samejima (1969Samejima ( , 1997 to examine graded responses. The recent study (Rush et al. in press) focused on a subset of patients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (MDD) derived from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial (Fava et al. 2003;Rush et al. 2004a). These patients were reasonably well educated as a group and were drawn from both primary and psychiatric care settings. They were selected to not be treatment resistant. Results were generally comparable between...

show abstract

“…Some argues that depression is a result of multiple causes that makes unfair the definition of depression as a one-dimensional condition. This way, a scale with a good coverage is appropriated when assumes that depression is a result of a set of clinical features, however, the scale must also generate one-dimensional subscales for each clinical feature, in order to evaluate clinical results of pharmacological studies; on the other hand, some researchers criticizes that subscale scores could implies in outperformed results, due to the unspecific items to asses depression symptoms, for example, hypochondriasis and anxiety, that affects directly on depression severity estimates and perceived changes during depressive episode [13][14][15][16][17][18] . Therefore, a short version of HAMD to improve psychometric characteristics and consequently to reduce outperformed results has been developed, to focus in core symptoms and exclude items that are related with medication effects or comorbidities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regarding to psychometric properties, there is a nonconsensus about reliability coefficients 1,12,13 . Bagby et al 12 found that HAMD-17 is psychometrically and conceptually inconsistent.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predicting response to treatment and discriminating bipolar and depression symptoms using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

Carneiro

Cavalcanti

Carvalho

et al. 2017

J. bras. psiquiatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The present study aims to compare the diagnostic ability of the HAMD 17 items with shorter versions of 7 and 6 items. Methods: A total of 133 patients from a 6 month clinical trial diagnosed with mood disorders (60.2% with Major Depressive Disorder and 39.8% with bipolar type I disorder) were recruited. Results: The 17 items HAMD scale showed similar results as compared with shorter versions. Furthermore, almost all patients' diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder scored more compared to Bipolar Disorder, but the difference was not significant. Conclusion: This study allows that the use of a shorter version of HAMD might be an adequate possibility, and also that depressive symptoms were similar among groups. RESUMOObjetivo: O presente estudo tem por objetivo investigar a habilidade diagnóstica da HAMD 17 comparada a versões breves de 7 e 6 itens. Métodos: Foram selecionados 133 participantes recrutados de um ensaio clínico (60,2% com Depressão Maior e 39,8% com Transtorno Bipolar tipo I). Resultados: A versão de 17 itens da HAMD mostrou resultados similares quando comparada às versões breves. Ademais, quase todos os pacientes diagnosticados com Depressão Maior apresentaram maiores pontuações, contudo, essa diferença não foi estatisticamente significativa. Conclusão: Este estudo demonstra que o uso de uma versão breve da HAMD pode ser uma possibilidade adequada e que os sintomas depressivos se mostraram similares entre os grupos de bipolares e depressivos.

show abstract

Exactly what does the Hamilton depression rating scale measure?

Cited by 203 publications

References 35 publications

The Montgomery Äsberg and the Hamilton ratings of depression: A comparison of measures

The Montgomery Äsberg and the Hamilton ratings of depression: A comparison of measures

Clinical vs. self-report versions of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology in a public sector sample

Predicting response to treatment and discriminating bipolar and depression symptoms using Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About