Literature DB >> 10701466

IDS-C and IDS-sr: psychometric properties in depressed in-patients.

E Corruble1, J M Legrand, C Duret, G Charles, J D Guelfi.   

Abstract

Sixty-eight depressed in-patients were assessed at admission (DO), and after 5 days (D5), ten days (D10) and 28 days (D28) of antidepressant treatment, with the Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician (IDS-C) and the Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Rated (IDS-SR) (Rush et al., 1986), the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (Montgomery and Asberg, 1979) and the depression factor of the Symptom Check List (SCL-90R) (Derogatis, 1977), in order to assess IDS-C and IDS-SR psychometric properties in depressed in-patients and to compare IDS-C to MADRS and IDS-SR to the SCL-90R depression factor. Most of the IDS-C and IDS-SR items were significantly correlated to the final score and the Cronbach alpha coefficients were high (0.75 for the IDS-C and 0.79 for the IDS-SR). Principal Component Analyses (PCA) showed three factors for both IDS-C and IDS-SR: 'depression', 'anxiety/arousal' and 'sleep/appetite'. These results suggest satisfactory internal consistency of IDS-C and IDS-SR. Concurrent validity of the IDS-C with the MADRS was high (r = 0.81), as well as concurrent validity of the IDS-SR with the SCL-90R depression factor (r = 0.84). Concerning sensitivity to change, the four scales were able to discriminate between different levels of severity of depression. Moreover, considering paired t-tests on score changes, IDS-C sensitivity to change may be higher than MADRS sensitivity to change, this phenomenon being related to the number of items and degrees but not to the item contents. Contrary to IDS-C and MADRS, IDS-SR and SCL-90R depression factor were not different in terms of sensitivity to change. Finally, psychometric properties of IDS-C and IDS-SR in depressed in-patients are satisfactory and close to those obtained in depressed out-patients. The high sensitivity to change of the IDS-C may be an advantage for this scale as compared to the MADRS, especially in antidepressant drug trials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10701466     DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0327(99)00055-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Affect Disord        ISSN: 0165-0327            Impact factor:   4.839


  22 in total

1.  Effects of Open-Label, Adjunctive Ganaxolone on Persistent Depression Despite Adequate Antidepressant Treatment in Postmenopausal Women: A Pilot Study.

Authors:  Laura E Dichtel; Maren Nyer; David Mischoulon; Maurizio Fava; Karen K Miller; Christina Dording; Lauren B Fisher; Cristina Cusin; Benjamin G Shapero; Paola Pedrelli; Allison S Kimball; Elizabeth M Rao
Journal:  J Clin Psychiatry       Date:  2020-06-09       Impact factor: 4.384

2.  Comorbid mental disorders in substance users from a single catchment area--a clinical study.

Authors:  Anne-Marit Langås; Ulrik F Malt; Stein Opjordsmoen
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2011-02-12       Impact factor: 3.630

3.  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.

Authors:  A John Rush; Ira H Bernstein; Madhukar H Trivedi; Thomas J Carmody; Stephen Wisniewski; James C Mundt; Kathy Shores-Wilson; Melanie M Biggs; Ada Woo; Andrew A Nierenberg; Maurizio Fava
Journal:  Biol Psychiatry       Date:  2005-09-30       Impact factor: 13.382

4.  The Montgomery Asberg and the Hamilton ratings of depression: a comparison of measures.

Authors:  Thomas J Carmody; A John Rush; Ira Bernstein; Diane Warden; Stephen Brannan; Daniel Burnham; Ada Woo; Madhukar H Trivedi
Journal:  Eur Neuropsychopharmacol       Date:  2006-06-12       Impact factor: 4.600

5.  Optimizing Actigraphic Estimation of Sleep Duration in Suspected Idiopathic Hypersomnia.

Authors:  Jesse D Cook; Sahand C Eftekari; Lydia A Leavitt; Michael L Prairie; David T Plante
Journal:  J Clin Sleep Med       Date:  2019-04-15       Impact factor: 4.062

6.  The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology: German translation and psychometric validation.

Authors:  T Drieling; L O Schärer; J M Langosch
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 4.035

Review 7.  Managing the patient with co-morbid depression and an anxiety disorder.

Authors:  Robert A Schoevers; Henricus L Van; Vincent Koppelmans; Simone Kool; Jack J Dekker
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 9.546

8.  The structure of the Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scale over the course of treatment for depression.

Authors:  Lena C Quilty; Jennifer J Robinson; Jean-Pierre Rolland; Filip De Fruyt; Frédéric Rouillon; R Michael Bagby
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2013-08-19       Impact factor: 4.035

9.  Validation of a novel online depression symptom severity rating scale: the R8 Depression.

Authors:  Yuki Takao; Eduardo Figueroa; Kevin Fernand Jean Berna; Youjin Jo; Lee Andrew Kissane; Kimio Yoshimura; Richard Tranter; Richard J Porter
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2021-06-12       Impact factor: 3.186

Review 10.  Data-driven subtypes of major depressive disorder: a systematic review.

Authors:  Hanna M van Loo; Peter de Jonge; Jan-Willem Romeijn; Ronald C Kessler; Robert A Schoevers
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2012-12-04       Impact factor: 8.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.