Validation of an IVRS version of the MADRS

Mundt, James C.; Katzelnick, David J.; Kennedy, Sidney H.; Eisfeld, Beata S.; Bouffard, Beverley; Greist, John H.

doi:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2005.05.002

Cited by 35 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A two-point difference between scores is within the acceptable range or ''margin or error'' as reported in the literature for scales with similar range and constructs [Hamilton, 1967]. Memory effects may have contributed to the high ICCs due to the short (approximately 15 min to half an hour) time between testings, although these are similar to the ICCs found in the original validation study [Montgomery and Asberg, 1979], and to those found by others [Mundt et al, 2006]. Using a shorter interval between testings controls for subject changes, and a similar interval has been used with no memory effects [Kobak et al, 1993[Kobak et al, , 1990.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…For telephone administration, apparent sadness was rated based on non-visual signs like tone of voice, rate of speech, and crying as well as direct probes from the SIGMA interview (e.g., ''In the past week, do you think you have looked sad or depressed to other people; Did anyone say you looked sad or down; How about when you've looked in the mirror; Did you look gloomy or depressed?''). This technique has been used successfully in self-report versions of the MADRS [Mundt et al, 2006] administered by computer as well as in computerized selfreport versions of the HAMD [Kobak et al, 1990] and HAMA [Kobak et al, 1993].…”

Section: Study 2: Telephone Versus Face-to-facementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Face-to-face versus remote administration of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale using videoconference and telephone

Kobak¹,

Williams

Jeglic

et al. 2008

Depress. Anxiety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the use of telemedicine in psychiatry has a long history in providing clinical care to patients, its use in clinical trials research has not yet been commonly employed. Telemedicine allows for the remote assessment of study patients, which could be done by a centralized, highly calibrated, and impartial cohort of raters independent of the study site. This study examined the comparability of remote administration of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) by videoconference and by telephone to traditional face-to-face administration. Two parallel studies were conducted: one compared face-to-face with videoconference administration (N=35), and the other compared face-to-face with telephone administration (N=35). In each study, depressed patients were interviewed independently twice: once in the traditional face-to-face manner, and the second time by either videoconference or teleconference. A counterbalanced order was used. The mean MADRS score for interviews conducted remotely by videoconference was not significantly different from the mean MADRS scores conducted by face-to-face administration (mean difference=0.51 points), P=.388, intraclass correlation (ICC)=.94, P<0001. Similarly, the mean MADRS score for interviews conducted by telephone was not significantly different from the mean MADRS score conducted by face-to-face administration (mean difference=0.74 points), P=.270, ICC=.93, P<0001. Results of the study support the comparability of remote administration of the MADRS, by both telephone and videoconference, to face-to-face administration. Comparability of the administration mode allows for remote assessment of patients in both research and clinical applications.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Study 2: Telephone Versus Face-to-facementioning

confidence: 99%

Face-to-face versus remote administration of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale using videoconference and telephone

Kobak¹,

Williams

Jeglic

et al. 2008

Depress. Anxiety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The MRCI was calculated as follows: (x2 Àx1 À(mu2 À mu1))/SE diff, where mu1 and mu2 were, respectively, the mean obtained from the sample in each neuropsychological pre and post rehabilitation test. Test retest reliability, which is used to calculate the SE diff (see Jacobson and Truax, 1991), was taken from previous data in literature: from Tombaugh (2006) for PASAT; from Novelli et al (1986) for COWA/S; from Ingram et al (1999) for WCSTpe; from Mundt et al (2006) for MADRS and from Vickrey et al (1995) for MSQoL. If a range of reliability was indicated (i.e., for PASAT 0.90 to 0.96), the mean value was chosen.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Persistence of the effects of attention and executive functions intensive rehabilitation in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis

Mattioli

Stampatori

Scarpazza

et al. 2012

Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition, interactive voice response system versions of the MADRS, HAM-D 17 , and QIDS-SR 16 have a growing role in clinical trials of MDD (Mundt et al, 2006; Rush et al, 2006a,b). The increasing importance of self-reported measures was recently demonstrated in the published results of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study, which used the QIDS-SR 16 as an outcome measure for response and remission (Trivedi et al, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation between patient and clinician assessments of depression severity in the PREVENT study

Dunlop

Li²,

Kornstein

et al. 2010

Psychiatry Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The degree of agreement between patient- and clinician-rated scales of depressive severity varies widely. This study analyzed agreement between commonly used depression rating scales in the Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with Venlafaxine Extended Release (ER) for Two Years (PREVENT) trial. Methods The PREVENT trial was a multiphase, randomized, double-blind study of patients with recurrent major depressive disorder. This secondary analysis evaluated acute (10 weeks) and continuation phase (6 months) data. Pearson correlation coefficients at each acute-phase (weekly) and continuation-phase (monthly) visit were calculated for patient-rated (30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated [IDS-SR30] and clinician-rated (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D17] and Clinical Global Impressions-Severity [CGI-S]) measures and for response and remission. Results Data from 1,047 patients were analyzed. The respective correlation coefficients at baseline, week 10, and month 6 were: IDS-SR30: HAM-D17: 0.46, 0.75, 0.70; and for IDS-SR30: CGI-S 0.28, 0.67, 0.65. Agreement between IDS-SR30- and HAM-D17-defined remission and response was relatively poor: week 10, 0.52 and 0.34, respectively; month 6, 0.45 and 0.32, respectively. Conclusions These findings suggest that patient-rated measures of depression severity do not correspond strongly with clinician ratings, and are particularly poor prior to the initiation of treatment.

show abstract

Validation of an IVRS version of the MADRS

Cited by 35 publications

References 13 publications

Face-to-face versus remote administration of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale using videoconference and telephone

Face-to-face versus remote administration of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale using videoconference and telephone

Persistence of the effects of attention and executive functions intensive rehabilitation in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis

Correlation between patient and clinician assessments of depression severity in the PREVENT study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About