4.5 Article

The Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Adolescent Version (QIDS-A17): A Psychometric Evaluation

Journal

NEUROPSYCHIATRIC DISEASE AND TREATMENT
Volume 19, Issue -, Pages 1085-1102

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/NDT.S400591

Keywords

pediatric depression; rating scale; psychometric properties; self-report measures

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study evaluated the psychometric features of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Adolescent version (QIDS-A17) and the clinician-rated Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R). The results demonstrated high total score correlations, internal consistency, and discriminant diagnostic validity for both measures.
Objective: The current study aimed to evaluate the psychometric features of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Adolescent version (QIDS-A17) and the clinician-rated Children's Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R).Methods: Altogether, 103 outpatients (8 to 17 years) completed the self-report QIDS-A17-SR. Clinician interviews of adolescents (QIDS-A17-C (Adolescent)) and of parents (QIDS-A17-C (Parent)) were combined to create the QIDS-A17-C(Composite) and the CDRS-R.Results: All QIDS-A17 measures and the CDRS-R evidenced high total score correlations and internal consistency. Factor analysis found all four measures to be unidimensional. Item Response Theory (IRT) analysis found results that complemented the reliability results found in CTT. All four also demonstrated discriminant diagnostic validity based on logistic regression and ANOVA analyses.Conclusion: The psychometric properties of the self-report and composite versions of the QIDS-A17 suggest acceptability as a measure of depression in adolescents either as a measure of depressive symptoms or severity of illness in adolescents. The self -report version may be a helpful tool in busy clinical practices.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available