Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience
Published in: European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 1/2011

01-02-2011 | Original Paper

Validity of the Definite and Semidefinite Questionnaire version of the Hamilton Depression Scale, the Hamilton Subscale and the Melancholia Scale. Part I

Authors: Jesper Bent-Hansen, Per Bech

Published in: European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience | Issue 1/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Instruments for self-rating in depression are available, but their psychometric properties have not been fully explored; discrepancies with clinician ratings have been identified. This study was longitudinal with 85 patients fulfilling the DSM-III-R diagnosis of Seasonal Affective Disorder. Self-reporting versions (definitely and semidefinitely anchored) corresponding to the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), the Hamilton Subscale (HAM6), and the Bech–Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale (MES) were compared to each other and the clinician-rated version. The unidimensional property of the sum score in each scale was tested by the item-response theory model ad modum Rasch. The scales were also tested for their sensitivity to discriminate between placebo and citalopram therapy. The sum scores and the sum score variances of the definite self-rating versions did not differ significantly from the sum scores of the corresponding observer scales at any of the five time points. The semidefinite scales significantly over-scored at all time points. The convergent validity between corresponding definite self-ratings and observer ratings was very high with correlations exceeding 0.90. Only item responses from the MES, the HAM6, and their corresponding definite versions of the self-rating questionnaires DMQ and DHAM6 were accepted by the Rasch analysis, and only these four valid scales discriminated significantly between the effect of citalopram and placebo treatment. Our results are limited to patients with moderate depression. Two new self-report scales with unparalleled construct validity, reliability, sensitivity, and convergent validity have been identified (DMQ and DHAM6). We have also identified a crucial importance of format for the means and variances of self-rating scales. These findings are of high practical and scientific value.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ajdacic-Gross V, Vetter S, Müller M, Kawohl W, Frey F, Lupi G, Blechschmidt A, Born C, Latal B, Rössler W (2009) Risk factors for stuttering: a secondary analysis of a large data base. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Published online: 15 Oct 2009
2.
3.
Armitage P, Berry G, Matthews JNS (2002) Statistical methods in medical research, 4th edn. Blackwell Scientific Publications, London, pp 203–204
4.
Bagby RM, Ryder AG, Schuller DR, Marshall MB (2004) The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: has the gold standard become a lead weight? Am J Psychiatry 161:2163–2177CrossRefPubMed
5.
Bech P (1981) Rating scales for affective disorders: their validity and consistency. Thesis. Acta Psychiatr Scand 64(Suppl 295):1–101
6.
Bech P, Kastrup M, Rafaelsen OJ (1986) Mini-compendium of rating scales for states of anxiety, depression, mania and schizophrenia with corresponding DSM-III syndromes. Acta Psychiatr Scand 73(Suppl 326):1–37
7.
Bech P (1993) Rating scales for psychopathology, health status and quality of life: a compendium on documentation in accordance with the DSM 3-R and WHO systems. Springer, Berlin
8.
Bech P (2002) The Bech–Rafaelsen melancholia Scale (MES) in clinical trials of therapies in depressive disorders: a 20-year review of its use as outcome measure. Acta Psychiatr Scand 106:252–264CrossRefPubMed
9.
Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, Mock ErbaughJ (1961) An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 4:561–571PubMed
10.
BenjaminiY HochbergY (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Stat Soc B 57:289–300
11.
Bent-Hansen J, Kørner A, Lauritzen L, Clemmesen L, Lunde M (1995) A definite and a semidefinite questionnaire version of the Hamilton/Melancholia (HAMD/MES) scale. J Affect Disord 33:143–150CrossRefPubMed
12.
Caroll BJ, Feinberg M, Smouse PE, Rawson SG, Greden JF (1981) The Carroll Rating Scale for depression 1. Development, reliability and validation. Br J Psychiatry 138:194–200CrossRef
13.
Demyttenaere K, Fruyt JD (2003) Getting what you ask for: on the Selectivity of Depression Rating Scales. Psychother Psychosom 72:61–70CrossRefPubMed
14.
Domken M, Scott J, Kelly P (1994) What factors predict discrepancies between self- and observer-ratings of depression? J Affect Disord 31:253–259CrossRefPubMed
15.
Faravelli C, Albanesi G, Poli E (1986) Assessment of depression: a comparison of rating scales. J Affect Disord 11:245–253CrossRefPubMed
16.
Feinberg M, Carroll BJ, Smouse P, Rawson S (1981) The Caroll Rating Scale for depression 3. Comparison with other rating instruments. Br J Psychiatry 138:205–209CrossRefPubMed
17.
18.
Hamilton M (1967) Development of a rating sale for primary depressive illness. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 6:278–296PubMed
19.
Kellner R (1986) The symptom rating test. In: Sartorius N, Ban TA (eds) Assessment of depression. Springer, Berlin, pp 213–220
20.
Keselman HJ, Cribbie R, Holland B (2002) Controlling the rate of Type I error over a large set of statistical tests. Br J Math Stat Psychiatry 55:27–39CrossRef
21.
22.
Lecrubier Y, Bech P (2007) The Ham D6 is more homogeneous and as sensitive as the HamD17. European Psychiatry 22:252–255CrossRefPubMed
23.
Ludbrook J (1998) Multiple comparison procedures updated. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 25:1032–1037CrossRefPubMed
24.
Maier W, Philipp M, Heuser I (1988) Improving depression severity assessment-I. Reliability internal validity and sensitivity to change of three observer depression scales. J Psychiatr Res 22:3–12CrossRefPubMed
25.
Martiny K, Lunde M, Simonsen C, Clemmesen L, Poulsen DL, Solstad K, Bech (2004) Relapse prevention by citalopram in SAD patients responding to 1 week of light therapy. A placebo-controlled study. Acta Psychiatr Scand 109:230–234CrossRefPubMed
26.
Miller PR, Dasher R, Collins R, Griffiths P, Brown F (2001) Inpatient diagnostic assessments: 1. Accuracy of structured vs. unstructured interviews. Psychiatry Res 105:255–265CrossRefPubMed
27.
Mulsant BH, Kastango KB, Rosen J, Stone RA, Mazumdar S, Pollock BG (2002) Interrater reliability in clinical trials of depressive disorders. Am J Psychiatry 159:1598–1600CrossRefPubMed
28.
Möller HJ (2001) Methodological aspects in the assessment of severity of depression by the Hamilton Depression Scale. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 251(Suppl 2):13–20CrossRef
29.
Möller HJ, Broich K (2009) Principle standards and problems regarding proof of efficacy in clinical psychopharmachology. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Published online: 04 Nov 2009
30.
Overall JE, Doyle SR (1994) Implications of chance baseline differences in repeated measurement designs. J Biopharm Stat 4:199–216CrossRefPubMed
31.
Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE (2002) Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med 21:2917–2930CrossRefPubMed
32.
Rasch G (1980) Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
33.
Rush AJ, Hiser W, Giles D (1987) A comparison of self-reported versus clinician-rated symptoms in depression. J Clin Psychiatry 48:246–248PubMed
34.
SAS Documentation (software version 9.1). The mixed linear model for repeated data
35.
Senra C, Polaino A (1993) Concordance between clinical and self-report depression scales during the acute phase and after treatment. J Affect Disord 27:13–20CrossRefPubMed
36.
Tondo L, Burrai C, Scamonatti L, Weissenburger J, Rush AJ (1988) Comparison between clinician-rated and self-reported depressive symptoms in Italian psychiatric patients. Neuropsychobiology 19:1–5CrossRefPubMed
37.
Williams JB, Link MJ, Rosenthal NE, Terman M (1988) Structured Interview guide for the Hamilton Depression rating Scale, Seasonal Affective Disorders Version (SIGH-SAD). New York Psychiatric Institute, New York
38.
Winer BJ (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design, 2nd edn. McGrawHill, New York, pp 289–296
Metadata
Title
Validity of the Definite and Semidefinite Questionnaire version of the Hamilton Depression Scale, the Hamilton Subscale and the Melancholia Scale. Part I
Authors
Jesper Bent-Hansen
Per Bech
Publication date
01-02-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience / Issue 1/2011
Print ISSN: 0940-1334
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8491
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-010-0106-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2011

European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 1/2011 Go to the issue

Erratum

Erratum to: The prevalence and clinical correlates of metabolic syndrome in patients with schizophrenia: findings from a cohort in Turkey

Original Paper

Reappraisal of the interplay between psychosis and depression symptoms in the pathogenesis of psychotic syndromes: results from a twenty-year prospective community study

Original Paper

A morphometric analysis of the septal nuclei in schizophrenia and affective disorders: reduced neuronal density in the lateral septal nucleus in bipolar disorder

Original Paper

Combining the categorical and the dimensional perspective in a diagnostic map of psychotic disorders

Original Paper

Childhood adversity and chronicity of mood disorders

Original Paper

The prevalence and clinical correlates of metabolic syndrome in patients with schizophrenia: findings from a cohort in Turkey