Comparison of Self-Report and Clinician Ratings on Two Inventories of Depressive Symptomatology

Rush, A. John; Carmody, Thomas; Ibrahim, Hisham M.; Trivedi, Madhukar H.; Biggs, Melanie M.; Shores-Wilson, Kathy; Crismon, M. Lynn; Toprac, Marcia G.; Kashner, T. Michael

doi:10.1176/ps.2006.57.6.829

Cited by 100 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The QIDS-SR was the most sensitive to treatment effects, which is consistent with extant literature and with the purpose of its original development (Rush et al 2006a;Rush et al 2006b;Rush et al 2003;2005;Trivedi et al 2004). Given that the DASS-21-DEP and the CES-D-10 have been less well studied in clinical samples, fewer psychometric evaluations have examined the treatment sensitivity of these measures.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

“…The instrument was developed among clinical samples, and assesses the nine criterion symptom domains that define a major depressive episode according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -Fourth Edition (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association 2000). The QIDSSR is a shortened form of the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self report version (Rush et al 1996(Rush et al , 2000, and it has demonstrated equal or better sensitivity to symptom change compared to its longer counterpart (Rush et al 2003;2005, 2006bTrivedi et al 2004). The QIDS-SR has also performed well against a matched clinician-rated version (Rush et al 2006a, b;Trivedi et al 2004), and against 17-and 24-item versions of the clinician-rated Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Rush et al 2003;2005, a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Comparison of Three Brief Depression Measures in an Acute Psychiatric Population: CES-D-10, QIDS-SR, and DASS-21-DEP

Weiss

Aderka

Lee

et al. 2014

J Psychopathol Behav Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The CES-D-10, QIDS-SR, and DASS-21-DEP are brief self-report instruments for depression that have demonstrated strong psychometric properties in clinical and community samples. However, it is unclear whether any of the three instruments is superior for assessing depression and treatment response in an acute, diagnostically heterogeneous, treatmentseeking psychiatric population. The present study examined the relative psychometric properties of these instruments in order to inform selection of an optimal depression measure in 377 patients enrolled in a psychiatric partial hospital program. Results indicated that the three measures demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency and strong convergent validity. They also demonstrated fair to good diagnostic utility, although diagnostic cut-off scores were generally higher than in previous samples. The three measures also evidenced high sensitivity to change in depressive symptoms over treatment, with the QIDS-SR showing the strongest effect. The results of this study indicate that any of the three depression measures may satisfactorily assess depressive symptoms in an acute psychiatric population. Thus, selection of a specific assessment tool should be guided by the identified purpose of the assessment. In a partial hospital setting, the QIDS-SR may confer some advantages, such as correspondence with DSM criteria, greater sensitivity to change, and assessment of suicidality.Keywords Depression . Assessment . Psychometric . Center for the epidemiological studies of depression-short form . Quick inventory of depressive symptomatology-self-report version . Depression anxiety and stress scales-21-item versionThe identification of valid, clinically useful, and efficient assessment tools is particularly important in the context of increasing emphasis on evidence-based mental healthcare and outcomes evaluation (Hunsley and Mash 2005). Yet, far less attention has been paid to issues related to the evidence-based assessment of depression in real-world clinical settings, relative to the emphasis placed on evidence-based treatment approaches in these settings (Barlow 2005;Hunsley and Mash 2005). Although there are a number of instruments available (see Joiner et al. 2005), there is a dearth of empirically-based information to guide the selection of depression measures in acute, heterogeneous treatment populations. Assessing treatment progress and outcome in acute treatment settings (e.g., inpatient, residential, or partial hospitals) is just as critical as other settings and warrants its own empirically-based evidence given the unique characteristics of these settings (e.g., very limited time to provide treatment in a population with high levels of symptom severity, comorbidity, functional impairment, and suicide risk).Although the clinical benefits of using evidence based assessments to monitor treatment outcome are clear (e.g., Duffy et al. 2008;Slade et al. 2006), they remain underutilized in psychiatric settings (Weiss et al. 2009;Zimmerman and McGlinchey 2008;Gilbody ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 73%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Three Brief Depression Measures in an Acute Psychiatric Population: CES-D-10, QIDS-SR, and DASS-21-DEP

Weiss

Aderka

Lee

et al. 2014

J Psychopathol Behav Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the Spanish version of the QIDS-SR 16 is increasingly used (e.g., Bernstein et al, 2007;Feinberg et al, 2014;Lesser et al, 2008;Rush et al, 2006b;Trinh et al, 2011), to date, there is a striking lack of studies addressing its psychometric properties. By contrast, these have been recently examined for the parent IDS-SR 30 in a large Spanish sample of MDD patients (Gili et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Spanish version of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR16): A psychometric analysis in a clinical sample

Trujols

Diego-Adeliño

Feliu‐Soler

et al. 2014

Journal of Affective Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The different scales show a considerable item overlap and include the DSM-IV [1] core symptoms of depression: all subscales (except ADAM2) include item 1 (depressed mood), 2 (guilt), 7 (work and interest) and 10 (anxiety psychic). None of these scales embodies all DSM-IV diagnostic depression criteria as the QIDS-C16 does Different studies in depressive patients have shown that the above-mentioned subscales are unidimensional and have comparable reliability and equal or even enhanced sensitivity to change compared to the HAMD17 (e.g., [6,11,13,18,20,45,51,52]). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The QIDS-C16-especially in comparative assessment with the HAMD17 and its subscales-is less researched. Trivedi and colleagues [61] as well as Rush and colleagues [51,52] demonstrated on depressed out-patient samples that the QIDS-C16 performed comparable to or even better than the IDS-C30 or the HAMD17 regarding sensitivity to symptom change and detection of response and depression remission.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sensitivity to changes during antidepressant treatment: a comparison of unidimensional subscales of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-C) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) in patients with mild major, minor or subsyndromal depression

Helmreich¹,

Wagner²,

Mergl

et al. 2011

Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the efficacy evaluation of antidepressant treatments, the total score of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) is still regarded as the 'gold standard'. We previously had shown that the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) was more sensitive to detect depressive symptom changes than the HAMD17 (Helmreich et al. 2011). Furthermore, studies suggest that the unidimensional subscales of the HAMD, which capture the core depressive symptoms, outperform the full HAMD regarding the detection of antidepressant treatment effects. The aim of the present study was to compare several unidimensional subscales of the HAMD and the IDS regarding their sensitivity to changes in depression symptoms in a sample of patients with mild major, minor or subsyndromal depression (MIND). Biweekly IDS-C28 and HAMD17 data from 287 patients of a 10-week randomised, placebo-controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of sertraline and cognitive-behavioural group therapy in patients with MIND were converted to subscale scores and analysed during the antidepressant treatment course. We investigated sensitivity to depressive change for all scales from assessment-to-assessment, in relation to depression severity level and placebo-verum differences. The subscales performed similarly during the treatment course, with slight advantages for some subscales in detecting treatment effects depending on the treatment modality and on the items included. Most changes in depressive symptomatology were detected by the IDS short scale, but regarding the effect sizes, it performed worse than most subscales. Unidimensional subscales are a time- and cost-saving option in judging drug therapy outcomes, especially in antidepressant treatment efficacy studies. However, subscales do not cover all facets of depression (e.g. atypical symptoms, sleep disturbances), which might be important for comprehensively understanding the nature of the disease depression. Therefore, the cost-to-benefit ratio must be carefully assessed in the decision for using unidimensional subscales.

show abstract

Comparison of Self-Report and Clinician Ratings on Two Inventories of Depressive Symptomatology

Abstract: Either the IDS-30 or the QIDS-16 self-report adequately assesses depressive symptom severity among public-sector outpatients with major depressive disorder. The briefer QIDS-16 may be preferred to save time and cost.

Cited by 100 publications

References 39 publications

A Comparison of Three Brief Depression Measures in an Acute Psychiatric Population: CES-D-10, QIDS-SR, and DASS-21-DEP

A Comparison of Three Brief Depression Measures in an Acute Psychiatric Population: CES-D-10, QIDS-SR, and DASS-21-DEP

The Spanish version of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR16): A psychometric analysis in a clinical sample

Sensitivity to changes during antidepressant treatment: a comparison of unidimensional subscales of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-C) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) in patients with mild major, minor or subsyndromal depression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About