An evaluation of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology and the Hamilton rating scale for depression: A sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression trial report

被引:321
作者
Rush, AJ
Bernstein, IH
Trivedi, MH
Carmody, TJ
Wisniewski, S
Mundt, JC
Shores-Wilson, K
Biggs, MM
Woo, A
Nierenberg, AA
Fava, M
机构
[1] Univ Texas, SW Med Ctr, Dept Psychiat, Dallas, TX 75390 USA
[2] Univ Texas, Dept Psychol, Arlington, TX 76019 USA
[3] Univ Pittsburgh, Grad Sch Publ Hlth, Epidemiol Data Ctr, Pittsburgh, PA USA
[4] Healthcare Technol Syst, Madison, WI USA
[5] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Clin Psychopharmacol Unit, Boston, MA 02114 USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology; Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology; item response theory; Samejima graded response model; depressive symptoms;
D O I
10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.08.022
中图分类号
Q189 [神经科学];
学科分类号
071006 ;
摘要
Background. Nine DSM-IV-TR criterion symptom domains are evaluated to diagnose major depressive disorder (MDD). The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) provides an efficient assessment of these domains and is available as a clinician rating (QIDS-C-16), a self-report (QIDS-SR16), and in an automated, interactive voice response (IVR) (QIDS-IVR16) telephone system. This report compares the performance of these three versions of the QIDS and the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD17). Methods: Data were acquired at baseline and exit from the first treatment step (citalopram) in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) trial, Outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD who completed all four ratings within +/- 2 days were identified from the first 1500 STAR*D subjects. Both item response theory and classical test theory. analyses were conducted. Results: The three methods for obtaining QIDS data produced consistent findings regarding relationships between the nine symptom domains and overall depression, demonstrating interchangeability among the three methods. The HRSD17 while generally satisfactory, rarely utilized the full range of item scores, and evidence suggested multidimensional measurement properties. Conclusions: In nonpsychotic MDD outpatients without overt cognitive impairment, clinician assessment of depression severity using either the QIDS-C-16 or HRSD17 may be successfully replaced by either the self-report or lVR version of the QIDS.
引用
收藏
页码:493 / 501
页数:9
相关论文
共 47 条
[1]  
American Psychiatric Association, 2000, Text revision (DSM-IV-TR), V4th, DOI [10.1176/dsm10.1176/appi.books.9780890420249.dsm-iv-tr, DOI 10.1176/DSM10.1176/APPI.BOOKS.9780890420249.DSM-IV-TR]
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2000, Am J Psychiatry, V157, P1
[3]   The Hamilton depression rating scale: Has the gold standard become a lead weight? [J].
Bagby, RM ;
Ryder, AG ;
Schuller, DR ;
Marshall, MB .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2004, 161 (12) :2163-2177
[4]  
Bauer Michael, 2002, World J Biol Psychiatry, V3, P5, DOI 10.3109/15622970209150599
[5]  
Bauer Michael, 2002, World J Biol Psychiatry, V3, P69, DOI 10.3109/15622970209150605
[6]   THE HAMILTON DEPRESSION SCALE - EVALUATION OF OBJECTIVITY USING LOGISTIC-MODELS [J].
BECH, P ;
ALLERUP, P ;
GRAM, LF ;
REISBY, N ;
ROSENBERG, R ;
JACOBSEN, O ;
NAGY, A .
ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA, 1981, 63 (03) :290-299
[7]  
Bent-Hansen J, 2003, PHARMACOPSYCHIATRY, V36, P313
[8]  
[Canadian Psychiatric Association Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT)], 2001, CAN J PSYCHIAT S1, V46, p5S
[9]   THE CARROLL RATING-SCALE FOR DEPRESSION .1. DEVELOPMENT, RELIABILITY AND VALIDATION [J].
CARROLL, BJ ;
FEINBERG, M ;
SMOUSE, PE ;
RAWSON, SG ;
GREDEN, JF .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 1981, 138 (MAR) :194-200
[10]  
Cleary P., 1977, DRUG EXP CLIN RES, V1, P115