Matthias J Müller1, Aleksandra Dragicevic. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Mainz, Untere Zahlbacher Strasse 8, D-55131 Mainz, Germany. mjm@mail.psychiatrie.klinik.uni-mainz.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the long and widespread use of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), standardized reliability studies in inexperienced raters are not available. METHODS: Rater training was carried using three videotaped interviews with depressed patients in 21 psychiatric novices who had negligible previous experience with the HAMD. Chance-corrected coefficients of rating agreement with expert standards (weighted kappa, ICC) were computed for single items and the total score of the HAMD. RESULTS: The results demonstrate sufficiently high interrater reliability (kappa>0.60) for most of the HAMD items and the total score (ICC=0.57-0.73). Three standardized HAMD training sessions seem adequate to establish satisfactory agreement among psychiatric novices. LIMITATIONS: The sample of video-taped interviews and, hence, the generalizability of the results, was restricted. CONCLUSIONS: High inter-rater reliability of the HAMD justifies the use by clinically inexperienced researchers after standardized training.
BACKGROUND: Despite the long and widespread use of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), standardized reliability studies in inexperienced raters are not available. METHODS: Rater training was carried using three videotaped interviews with depressedpatients in 21 psychiatric novices who had negligible previous experience with the HAMD. Chance-corrected coefficients of rating agreement with expert standards (weighted kappa, ICC) were computed for single items and the total score of the HAMD. RESULTS: The results demonstrate sufficiently high interrater reliability (kappa>0.60) for most of the HAMD items and the total score (ICC=0.57-0.73). Three standardized HAMD training sessions seem adequate to establish satisfactory agreement among psychiatric novices. LIMITATIONS: The sample of video-taped interviews and, hence, the generalizability of the results, was restricted. CONCLUSIONS: High inter-rater reliability of the HAMD justifies the use by clinically inexperienced researchers after standardized training.
Authors: Anette Schrag; Paolo Barone; Richard G Brown; Albert F G Leentjens; William M McDonald; Sergio Starkstein; Daniel Weintraub; Werner Poewe; Olivier Rascol; Cristina Sampaio; Glenn T Stebbins; Christopher G Goetz Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Ricardo Henrique-Araújo; Flávia L Osório; Mônica Gonçalves Ribeiro; Ivandro Soares Monteiro; Janet B W Williams; Amir Kalali; José Alexandre Crippa; Irismar Reis De Oliveira Journal: Innov Clin Neurosci Date: 2014-07
Authors: Matthew D McEvoy; William R Hand; Cory M Furse; Larry C Field; Carlee A Clark; Vivek K Moitra; Paul J Nietert; Michael F O'Connor; Mark E Nunnally Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: Jules Rosen; Benoit H Mulsant; Patricia Marino; Christopher Groening; Robert C Young; Debra Fox Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2008-08-30 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Matthew D McEvoy; Jeremy C Smalley; Paul J Nietert; Larry C Field; Cory M Furse; John W Blenko; Benjamin G Cobb; Jenna L Walters; Allen Pendarvis; Nishita S Dalal; John J Schaefer Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: David A Cook; Denise M Dupras; Thomas J Beckman; Kris G Thomas; V Shane Pankratz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-11-11 Impact factor: 5.128