The Major Depression Inventory versus Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry in a population sample

Abstract

The result from this study suggests that, when MDI is used in population-based samples, cut-off scores rather than the algorithm for depression should be used. The optimal cut-off score must be chosen according to the aims of the study.

Misclassification and the use of register‐based indicators for depression

“…Moreover, missing true cases and false-positive cases may result from measurement error with respect to the MDI. A population-based validation study (10) finds misclassification of the MDI measure, expressed in sensitivity (67%) and specificity (81%); unfortunately, we do not know the corresponding values for this study sample. If we rely on these validation results, we could hardly use the major depression prevalence measured by MDI in absolute terms.…”

“…It assesses information on depressive symptoms with a continuous duration of at least 2 weeks, which corresponds to DSM-IV and ICD-10. The MDI has been validated at clinical and population levels (10,15,16) with respect to the DSM-IV diagnosis. Moreover, information on gender and age was taken from the survey material.…”

“…The key is to ask about a set of depressive symptoms that correspond to the diagnostic schemes and algorithms used in the ICD or DSM. Such rating scales have been used as casefinding tools in clinical trials and epidemiological studies (10,11). The rising interest in depression research and the mentioned limitations of the rating scales have broadened the view on alternative ways to measure depression as an outcome.…”

Bullying at work and onset of a major depressive episode among Danish female eldercare workers

“…The DSM-IV algorithm has been tested in a Danish clinical validation study (21), where it showed acceptable sensitivity and specificity when compared to a clinical diagnosis based on the Schedule for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN). The MDI has further been validated against the SCAN in a Swedish populationbased study (22) and against the Hamilton Depression Scale in another Danish clinical study (23).…”

“…We assessed MDE with the MDI, a well-established and widely-used instrument that has been validated in clinical and population-based studies (21)(22)(23). We acknowledge, however, that the gold standard for assessing MDE is a clinical diagnostic interview and that the results from this study should to be replicated in a study that uses such an instrument.…”