The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): psychometric properties

Rush, A. John; Gullion, Christina M.; Basco, Monica Ramirez; Jarrett, Robin B.; Trivedi, Madhukar H.

doi:10.1017/s0033291700035558

Cited by 1,908 publications

(1,562 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

1,530

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While we find consistent results across several instruments and subsamples, and while there is evidence for similar patterns in other rating scales in clinical trials (e.g., Quilty et al, 2013;Rush et al, 1996), follow-up studies are required to examine the generalizability of our results regarding depression instruments, different populations, and psycho-vs. pharmacotherapy.…”

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 66%

“…The IDS-C was developed, among other reasons, because the authors suggested that other instruments such as the HRSD have poor item content (Rush et al, 1996). The items 'weight gain' and 'weight loss', and 'appetite increase' and 'appetite decrease', are combined into 'weight problems' and 'appetite problems', since only one symptom in each domain was scored in the STAR*D study.…”

Section: Inventory Of Depressive Symptoms Clinician-rated Version (Imentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Radloff, for instance, recommended to describe the CES-D with 4 factors, Beck suggested to extract at least two factors for the BDI, and Rush et al identified 3 factors in their psychometric study of the IDS-30 (Rush et al, 1996). Multifactorial results also emerge when symptoms of several questionnaire are pooled (Uher et al, 2008).…”

Section: Unidimensionalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Measuring depression over time . . . Or not? Lack of unidimensionality and longitudinal measurement invariance in four common rating scales of depression.

Fried

Borkulo

Epskamp

et al. 2016

Psychological Assessment

253

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In depression research, symptoms are routinely assessed via rating scales and added to construct sum-scores. These scores are used as a proxy for depression severity in cross-sectional research, and differences in sum-scores over time are taken to reflect changes in an underlying depression construct. To allow for such interpretations, rating scales must (a) measure a single construct, and (b) measure that construct in the same way across time. These requirements are referred to as unidimensionality and measurement invariance. We investigated these 2 requirements in 2 large prospective studies (combined n = 3,509) in which overall depression levels decrease, examining 4 common depression rating scales (1 self-report, 3 clinician-report) with different time intervals between assessments (between 6 weeks and 2 years). A consistent pattern of results emerged. For all instruments, neither unidimensionality nor measurement invariance appeared remotely tenable. At least 3 factors were required to describe each scale, and the factor structure changed over time. Typically, the structure became less multifactorial as depression severity decreased (without however reaching unidimensionality). The decrease in the sum-scores was accompanied by an increase in the variances of the sum-scores, and increases in internal consistency. These findings challenge the common interpretation of sum-scores and their changes as reflecting 1 underlying construct. The violations of common measurement requirements are sufficiently severe to suggest alternative interpretations of depression sum-scores as formative instead of reflective measures. We discuss the possible causes of these violations such as response shift bias, restriction of range, and regression to the mean.

show abstract

Section: Limitationssupporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Inventory Of Depressive Symptoms Clinician-rated Version (Imentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring depression over time . . . Or not? Lack of unidimensionality and longitudinal measurement invariance in four common rating scales of depression.

Fried

Borkulo

Epskamp

et al. 2016

Psychological Assessment

253

241

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Those who met criteria for BP II, who were currently in a major depressive episode and scored Z 22 on the 30-item Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Rated (Rush et al, 1996), were enrolled. For the current fMRI study, these participants were scanned while unmedicated, before their randomization to treatment in an ongoing clinical trial.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frontal lobe hypoactivation in medication-free adults with bipolar II depression during response inhibition

Penfold¹,

Vizueta²,

Townsend³

et al. 2015

Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…When the symptoms are mild, however, their comparative severities are more difficult for the rater to estimate from the brief interview period of observation. Some affective states, such as hostility, are more likely to be reported and more sensitively recognized by the patient than by trained raters (Weissman et al 1971;Katz et al 1987 Raskin et al 1967), and the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-SelfReport (IDS-SR) (Rush et al 1986(Rush et al , 1996. 2.…”

Section: Conceptions Of Depression and The Mechanisms Of Drug Actionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing the Technology of Clinical Trials and the Trials Model to Evaluate Newly Developed, Targeted Antidepressants

Katz

Halbreich

Bowden

et al. 2002

Neuropsychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern about disappointing results from recent multicenter trials of new antidepressants prompted several ACNP workshops on "improving the technology of clinical trials." The workshops focused on technical problems, such as patient screening, reliability of clinical ratings, and the role of the placebo control. They aimed to determine how to 27 , NO . 3 ducing adverse events, and lessening the complexity of dosing regimens. In addition, attention is currently focused on accelerating the onset of drug action to generate more rapidly acting antidepressants. Unfortunately, recently conducted multi-center clinical trials of some of these agents encountered serious technical problems and did not produce the results anticipated from preclinical studies. Although this may be partly due to limitations in extrapolating pre-clinical data to patients, it may also be that there are significant constraints in the current clinical trials model that make it difficult to demonstrate efficacy.The current clinical trials model is now 30 years old. The essential principles of randomization, double blind evaluation, and a placebo control remain sound. But other important aspects of the research design and the methodology are no longer sufficient or well suited to the testing of these new drugs. In effect, such deficiencies in current trial methodologies make it increasingly difficult to demonstrate antidepressant efficacy of these new drugs.One important reason the current model has proved inadequate is that it was initially applied to hospitalized depressed patients. Today new drugs are tested almost exclusively on outpatient samples, many of whom are symptomatic volunteers, responding to advertisements. Depressed outpatients have milder depressive symptomatology than the predominantly inpatient samples used to test the first established drugs. Patients with milder severity provide a narrower range of possible change, and produce a greater number of placebo responders (Fisher et al. 1965;Bowden et al. 2000;Khan et al. 2002).As a consequence of the smaller difference between active treatment and placebo treatment, larger patient samples and/or more sensitive clinical methods are needed to detect differences between drug and placebo. The most commonly utilized scales, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) (Hamilton 1960) and the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) (Guy 1976), were designed to measure changes in overall severity of the disorder. These scales are not sufficiently sensitive to assess the specific behavioral changes brought about by the newer drugs (Montgomery and Asberg 1979). Further, intensive evaluation of symptomatology and behavioral change are carried out infrequently with outpatients, making evaluation of rapidity of response problematic. Consequently, it appears important to improve the technology applied to assessing the specific actions, onset, and efficacy of the newer drugs.Acknowledging the increased complexity of the goals of clinical trials and the need to improve trial procedures, the desi...

show abstract

The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): psychometric properties

Cited by 1,908 publications

References 21 publications

Measuring depression over time . . . Or not? Lack of unidimensionality and longitudinal measurement invariance in four common rating scales of depression.

Measuring depression over time . . . Or not? Lack of unidimensionality and longitudinal measurement invariance in four common rating scales of depression.

Frontal lobe hypoactivation in medication-free adults with bipolar II depression during response inhibition

Enhancing the Technology of Clinical Trials and the Trials Model to Evaluate Newly Developed, Targeted Antidepressants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About