1994
DOI: 10.1016/0165-1781(94)90110-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hamilton anxiety rating scale interview guide: Joint interview and test-retest methods for interrater reliability

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
106
0
2

Year Published

2000
2000
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 164 publications
(109 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
1
106
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A CAPS follow-up assessment was conducted by one of two other trained clinicians, who were blind to the condition assignment. To assess interrater reliability, we used a joint interview method [16]. Interrater reliability of the total CAPS score was good (r = 0.97).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A CAPS follow-up assessment was conducted by one of two other trained clinicians, who were blind to the condition assignment. To assess interrater reliability, we used a joint interview method [16]. Interrater reliability of the total CAPS score was good (r = 0.97).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Just before and after the 14-week period of cognitive training, all patients were evaluated using the Mini-Mental State Examination (11), Montgomery-Alsberg Depression Rating Scale (12), Hamilton Anxiety Scale (13) (22,23) and Phonemic (24).…”
Section: Subjectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The following values were used in the RCI formulae in the present study: GAD CSR, SD = 0.91, reliability = .72; STAI-T, SD = 7.66, reliability = .84; PSWQ, SD = 8.09, reliability = .91; HARS, SD = 6.90, reliability = .80. Standard deviations represent the standard deviation of the pooled sample at pretherapy assessment, and the reliability estimates represent reported retest reliability coefficients for each measure (Bruss et al, 1994;Meyer et al, 1990;Newman et al, 2010;Spielberger et al, 1983). Mean RCIs were calculated for change immediately after treatment relative to pretherapy assessment.…”
Section: Nomothetic Analysesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Internal consistency ranges from adequate to good (αs = .77 to .81, Moras, di Nardo, & Barlow, 1992; .82 in the current sample). Retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, or ICC) was .86 across 2 days, and interrater reliability ICCs ranged from .74 to .96 (Bruss, Gruenberg, Goldstein, & Barber, 1994 The PSWQ is a 16-item self-report measure of pathological worry. Factor analysis indicated that the PSWQ assesses a unidimensional construct with internal consistency of .91 (Meyer et al, 1990; .83 in the current sample).…”
Section: State Trait Anxiety Inventory-trait Version (Stai-t; Spielbementioning
confidence: 99%