BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Former Spanish studies on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) have focused on the 17 items version and have been conducted in depressive in-patient series. This study compares the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of HDRS with 6, 17 and 21 items as assessed in depressive patients in ambulatory care. PATIENTS AND METHOD: A prospective, observational and multicenter study was conducted in clinically stable or unstable depressed patients. The discriminative validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest and inter-raters) and sensitivity to change were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty eight patients from 15 psychiatric facilities were included. The 6, 17 and 21 items versions of HDRS showed appropriate discriminative validity (HDRS-Clinical Global Impression: p < 0.0001); internal consistency (Cronbach *: HDRS-6 = 0.6; HDRS-17 and 21 >= 0.7); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: HDRS-6, 17 and 21 >= 0.9); inter-raters reliability (ICC: HDRS-6, 17 and 21 >= 0.9) and sensitivity to change (effect size >= 1.5 for HDRS-6, 17 and 21). CONCLUSIONS: Spanish versions of HDRS with 6, 17 and 21 items show similar psychometric properties. HDRS-6 could be useful in ambulatory and primary care.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Former Spanish studies on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) have focused on the 17 items version and have been conducted in depressive in-patient series. This study compares the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of HDRS with 6, 17 and 21 items as assessed in depressivepatients in ambulatory care. PATIENTS AND METHOD: A prospective, observational and multicenter study was conducted in clinically stable or unstable depressedpatients. The discriminative validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest and inter-raters) and sensitivity to change were assessed. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty eight patients from 15 psychiatric facilities were included. The 6, 17 and 21 items versions of HDRS showed appropriate discriminative validity (HDRS-Clinical Global Impression: p < 0.0001); internal consistency (Cronbach *: HDRS-6 = 0.6; HDRS-17 and 21 >= 0.7); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: HDRS-6, 17 and 21 >= 0.9); inter-raters reliability (ICC: HDRS-6, 17 and 21 >= 0.9) and sensitivity to change (effect size >= 1.5 for HDRS-6, 17 and 21). CONCLUSIONS: Spanish versions of HDRS with 6, 17 and 21 items show similar psychometric properties. HDRS-6 could be useful in ambulatory and primary care.
Authors: Velda J Gonzalez; Leorey N Saligan; Brooke L Fridley; Humberto Ortiz-Zuazaga; Lauren S Aaronson Journal: P R Health Sci J Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 0.705
Authors: Maria M Santos; James R Rae; Gabriela A Nagy; Katherine E Manbeck; Gabriela Diéguez Hurtado; Paul West; Azara Santiago-Rivera; Jonathan W Kanter Journal: J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry Date: 2016-07-07
Authors: Benjamin Keller; Joan-Ignasi Mestre-Pinto; María Álvaro-Bartolomé; Diana Martinez-Sanvisens; Magí Farre; M Julia García-Fuster; Jesús A García-Sevilla; Marta Torrens Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2017-12-01 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Adriane R Rosa; Jose Sánchez-Moreno; Anabel Martínez-Aran; Manel Salamero; Carla Torrent; Maria Reinares; Mercè Comes; Francesc Colom; Willemijn Van Riel; Jose Luis Ayuso-Mateos; Flávio Kapczinski; Eduard Vieta Journal: Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health Date: 2007-06-07
Authors: Emma Del Carmen Macías-Cortés; Lidia Llanes-González; Leopoldo Aguilar-Faisal; Juan Asbun-Bojalil Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-03-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Maria Paz Garcia-Portilla; Leticia Garcia-Alvarez; Pilar Alejandra Saiz; Eva Diaz-Mesa; Gonzalo Galvan; Fernando Sarramea; Josefa Garcia-Blanco; Edorta Elizagarate; Julio Bobes Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2013-12-24 Impact factor: 3.390