Ira H Bernstein1, Burdette Wendt, Suhayl J Nasr, A John Rush. 1. Department of Clinical Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Boulevard, Dallas, TX 75390-9066, USA. Ira.Bernstein@utsouthwestern.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies have compared the 16-item self-report version of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16) with other depression scales, but none has used a sample of patients from a single, large, private psychiatric practice. This study compared ratings from 175 outpatients on the QIDS-SR16, the 17-item Carroll Depression Rating Scale (CDRS-SR17, a self-report modification of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression), and the thirteen depression items from the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-D13). The Mini version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (MiniSCID) served as a "gold standard" for assessing depression. METHODS: Basic item and scale statistics were obtained using classical test theory. Dimensionalities were obtained using factor analysis. Test information functions obtained from the Samejima item response theory model provided additional reliability-like results. This model was also used to compare patients classified as depressed versus nondepressed on the basis of the MiniSCID. Additional validity information was assessed comparing: (a) ANOVA effect sizes, (b) receiver operating characteristic curves, (c) univariate logistic regression, (d) the MANOVA, and (e) multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The QIDS-SR16 was found to be related most strongly to the MiniSCID diagnoses. The SCL-D13, however, was the most reliable of the three scales (alpha=0.91). It was the most sensitive to differences in depression for all but the most depressed patients, for whom the CDRS-SR17 was the most sensitive. The QIDS-SR16 was the most valid based on four different analyses (effect size/ANOVA, univariate logistic regression/ROC analysis, MANOVA, and multivariate logistic regression), although only slightly more so. The QIDS-SR16 was found to be unidimensional; its items cover only the nine diagnostic symptom domains used to characterize a DSM-IV-TR major depressive episode. CONCLUSIONS: All three measures performed satisfactorily, but there are clearly defined advantages to using the QIDS-SR16, as, by its very design, it assesses the core symptoms of depression and does not require a clinician.
BACKGROUND: Several studies have compared the 16-item self-report version of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16) with other depression scales, but none has used a sample of patients from a single, large, private psychiatric practice. This study compared ratings from 175 outpatients on the QIDS-SR16, the 17-item Carroll Depression Rating Scale (CDRS-SR17, a self-report modification of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression), and the thirteen depression items from the Symptom Check List-90 (SCL-D13). The Mini version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (MiniSCID) served as a "gold standard" for assessing depression. METHODS: Basic item and scale statistics were obtained using classical test theory. Dimensionalities were obtained using factor analysis. Test information functions obtained from the Samejima item response theory model provided additional reliability-like results. This model was also used to compare patients classified as depressed versus nondepressed on the basis of the MiniSCID. Additional validity information was assessed comparing: (a) ANOVA effect sizes, (b) receiver operating characteristic curves, (c) univariate logistic regression, (d) the MANOVA, and (e) multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: The QIDS-SR16 was found to be related most strongly to the MiniSCID diagnoses. The SCL-D13, however, was the most reliable of the three scales (alpha=0.91). It was the most sensitive to differences in depression for all but the most depressedpatients, for whom the CDRS-SR17 was the most sensitive. The QIDS-SR16 was the most valid based on four different analyses (effect size/ANOVA, univariate logistic regression/ROC analysis, MANOVA, and multivariate logistic regression), although only slightly more so. The QIDS-SR16 was found to be unidimensional; its items cover only the nine diagnostic symptom domains used to characterize a DSM-IV-TR major depressive episode. CONCLUSIONS: All three measures performed satisfactorily, but there are clearly defined advantages to using the QIDS-SR16, as, by its very design, it assesses the core symptoms of depression and does not require a clinician.
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
Authors: Thomas J Carmody; A John Rush; Ira H Bernstein; Stephen Brannan; Mustafa M Husain; Madhukar H Trivedi Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2006-05-16 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: M H Trivedi; A J Rush; H M Ibrahim; T J Carmody; M M Biggs; T Suppes; M L Crismon; K Shores-Wilson; M G Toprac; E B Dennehy; B Witte; T M Kashner Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Maurizio Fava; A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Andrew A Nierenberg; Michael E Thase; Harold A Sackeim; Frederic M Quitkin; Steven Wisniewski; Philip W Lavori; Jerrold F Rosenbaum; David J Kupfer Journal: Psychiatr Clin North Am Date: 2003-06
Authors: A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Hicham M Ibrahim; Thomas J Carmody; Bruce Arnow; Daniel N Klein; John C Markowitz; Philip T Ninan; Susan Kornstein; Rachel Manber; Michael E Thase; James H Kocsis; Martin B Keller Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2003-09-01 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: A John Rush; Maurizio Fava; Stephen R Wisniewski; Philip W Lavori; Madhukar H Trivedi; Harold A Sackeim; Michael E Thase; Andrew A Nierenberg; Frederic M Quitkin; T Michael Kashner; David J Kupfer; Jerrold F Rosenbaum; Jonathan Alpert; Jonathan W Stewart; Patrick J McGrath; Melanie M Biggs; Kathy Shores-Wilson; Barry D Lebowitz; Louise Ritz; George Niederehe Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2004-02
Authors: Paul A Nakonezny; David W Morris; Tracy L Greer; Matthew J Byerly; Thomas J Carmody; Bruce D Grannemann; Ira H Bernstein; Madhukar H Trivedi Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2015-03-21 Impact factor: 4.791
Authors: E Sherwood Brown; Carroll W Hughes; Roderick McColl; Ronald Peshock; Kevin S King; A John Rush Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2013-10-04 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Aiswarya Laks Nandakumar; Jennifer L Vande Voort; Paul A Nakonezny; Scott S Orth; Magdalena Romanowicz; Ayse Irem Sonmez; Jessica A Ward; Sandra J Rackley; John E Huxsahl; Paul E Croarkin Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2018-11-02 Impact factor: 2.576
Authors: Elizabeth M Camacho; Dionysios Ntais; Peter Coventry; Peter Bower; Karina Lovell; Carolyn Chew-Graham; Clare Baguley; Linda Gask; Chris Dickens; Linda M Davies Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-10-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Irene M Lako; Johanna T W Wigman; Rianne M C Klaassen; Cees J Slooff; Katja Taxis; Agna A Bartels-Velthuis Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 3.630