Janet B W Williams1, Kenneth A Kobak. 1. Biometrics Research Unit, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA. jwilliams@medavante.net
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is often used in clinical trials to select patients and to assess treatment efficacy. The scale was originally published without suggested questions for clinicians to use in gathering the information necessary to rate the items. Structured and semi-structured interview guides have been found to improve reliability with other scales. AIMS: To describe the development and test-retest reliability of a structured interview guide for the MADRS (SIGMA). METHOD: A total of 162 test-retest interviews were conducted by 81 rater pairs. Each patient was interviewed twice, once by each rater conducting an independent interview. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation for total score between raters using the SIGMA was r=0.93, P<0.0001. All ten items had good to excellent interrater reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the SIGMA can result in high reliability of MADRS scores in evaluating patients with depression.
BACKGROUND: The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is often used in clinical trials to select patients and to assess treatment efficacy. The scale was originally published without suggested questions for clinicians to use in gathering the information necessary to rate the items. Structured and semi-structured interview guides have been found to improve reliability with other scales. AIMS: To describe the development and test-retest reliability of a structured interview guide for the MADRS (SIGMA). METHOD: A total of 162 test-retest interviews were conducted by 81 rater pairs. Each patient was interviewed twice, once by each rater conducting an independent interview. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation for total score between raters using the SIGMA was r=0.93, P<0.0001. All ten items had good to excellent interrater reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the SIGMA can result in high reliability of MADRS scores in evaluating patients with depression.
Authors: Margit I Berman; Jay C Buckey; Jay G Hull; Eftihia Linardatos; Sueyoung L Song; Robert K McLellan; Mark T Hegel Journal: Behav Ther Date: 2014-02-07
Authors: Megha M Vasavada; Amber M Leaver; Stephanie Njau; Shantanu H Joshi; Linda Ercoli; Gerhard Hellemann; Katherine L Narr; Randall Espinoza Journal: J ECT Date: 2017-12 Impact factor: 3.635
Authors: Eric J Lenze; Nuri B Farber; Evan Kharasch; Julie Schweiger; Michael Yingling; John Olney; John W Newcomer Journal: World J Biol Psychiatry Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 4.132
Authors: Giselli Scaini; Tatiana Barichello; Gabriel R Fries; Elizabeth A Kennon; Taylor Andrews; Bobby R Nix; Giovana Zunta-Soares; Samira S Valvassori; Jair C Soares; João Quevedo Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Boadie W Dunlop; Steven P Cole; Charles B Nemeroff; Helen S Mayberg; W Edward Craighead Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Isabelle E Bauer; Austin Ouyang; Benson Mwangi; Marsal Sanches; Giovana B Zunta-Soares; Richard S E Keefe; Hao Huang; Jair C Soares Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2015-02-07 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: Sharon Simpson; Emma Barnes; Emily Griffiths; Kerry Hood; David Cohen; Nick Craddock; Ian Jones; Daniel J Smith Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2009-08-12 Impact factor: 3.630