4.0 Article

Screening for Major Depression in Private Practice

Journal

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC PRACTICE
Volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 87-94

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/01.pra.0000348361.03925.b3

Keywords

depression; rating scales; Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression; Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report; Symptom Check List-90; Carroll Depression Rating Scale; psychometrics

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health
  2. Stanley Medical Research Institute
  3. Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc.
  4. AstraZeneca
  5. Best Practice Project Management, Inc.
  6. Bristol-Myers Squibb/Otsuka Company
  7. Cyberonics, Inc.
  8. Forest Pharmaceuticals
  9. Gerson Lehman Group
  10. GlaxoSmithKline
  11. Jazz Pharmaceuticals
  12. Magellan Health Services
  13. Merck Co., Inc
  14. Neuronetics
  15. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  16. Ono Pharmaceutical
  17. Organon USA Inc.
  18. Otsuka Pharmaceuticals
  19. Pamlab
  20. Pfizer Inc.
  21. Transcept Pharmaceuticals
  22. Urban Institute
  23. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Inc.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Several studies have compared the 16-item self-report version of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16) with other depression scales, but none has used a sample of patients from a single, large, private psychiatric practice. This study compared ratings from 175 outpatients on the QIDS-SR16, the 17-item Carroll Depression Rating Scale (CDRS-SR17, a self-report modification of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression), and the thirteen depression items from the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-D-13). The Mini version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (MiniSCID) served as a gold standard for assessing depression. Methods. Basic item and scale statistics were obtained using classical test theory. Dimensionalities were obtained using factor analysis. Test information functions obtained from the Samejima item response theory model provided additional reliability-like results. This model was also used to compare patients classified as depressed versus nondepressed on the basis of the MiniSCID. Additional validity information was assessed comparing: (a) ANOVA effect sizes, (b) receiver operating characteristic curves, (c) univariate logistic regression, (d) the MANOVA, and (e) multivariate logistic regression. Results. The QIDS-SR16 was found to be related most strongly to the MiniSCID diagnoses. The SCL-D-13, however, was the most reliable of the three scales (alpha = 0.91). It was the most sensitive to differences in depression for all but the most depressed patients, for whom the CDRS-SR17 was the most sensitive. The QIDS-SR16 was the most valid based on four different analyses (effect size/ANOVA, univariate logistic regression/ROC analysis, MANOVA, and multivariate logistic regression), although only slightly more so. The QIDS-SR16 was found to be unidimensional; its items cover only the nine diagnostic symptom domains used to characterize a DSM-IV-TR major depressive episode. Conclusions. All three measures performed satisfactorily, but there are clearly defined advantages to using the QIDS-SR16, as, by its very design, it assesses the core symptoms of depression and does not require a clinician. (Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2009;15:87-94)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available