OBJECTIVE: The clinician-rated (QIDS-C₁₆) and self-report (QIDS-SR₁₆) versions of the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology have been extensively examined in adult populations. This study evaluated both versions of the QIDS and the 17-item Children's Depressive Rating Scale - Revised (CDRS-R) in an adolescent outpatient sample. METHOD: Both the QIDS-C₁₆ and QIDS-SR₁₆ were completed for the adolescents. Three different methods were used to complete the QIDS-C₁₆: (a) adolescents' responses to clinician interviews; (b) parents' responses to clinician interview; and (c) a composite score using the most pathological response from the two interviews. Both classical and item response theory methods were used. Factor analyses evaluated the dimensionality of each scale. RESULTS: The sample included 140 adolescent outpatients. All versions of the QIDS, save the parent interview, and the CDRS-R were very reliable (α ≥ 0.8). All four versions of the QIDS are reasonably effective and unidimensional. The CDRS-R was clearly at least two-dimensional. The CDRS-R was the most discriminating among low and extremely high levels of depression. The QIDS-SR₁₆ was the most discriminating at moderate levels of depression. There was no relation between the QIDS scores and concurrent Axis III comorbidities. CONCLUSION: The QIDS-C₁₆ and the QIDS-SR₁₆ are suitable for use in adolescents.
OBJECTIVE: The clinician-rated (QIDS-C₁₆) and self-report (QIDS-SR₁₆) versions of the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology have been extensively examined in adult populations. This study evaluated both versions of the QIDS and the 17-item Children's Depressive Rating Scale - Revised (CDRS-R) in an adolescent outpatient sample. METHOD: Both the QIDS-C₁₆ and QIDS-SR₁₆ were completed for the adolescents. Three different methods were used to complete the QIDS-C₁₆: (a) adolescents' responses to clinician interviews; (b) parents' responses to clinician interview; and (c) a composite score using the most pathological response from the two interviews. Both classical and item response theory methods were used. Factor analyses evaluated the dimensionality of each scale. RESULTS: The sample included 140 adolescent outpatients. All versions of the QIDS, save the parent interview, and the CDRS-R were very reliable (α ≥ 0.8). All four versions of the QIDS are reasonably effective and unidimensional. The CDRS-R was clearly at least two-dimensional. The CDRS-R was the most discriminating among low and extremely high levels of depression. The QIDS-SR₁₆ was the most discriminating at moderate levels of depression. There was no relation between the QIDS scores and concurrent Axis III comorbidities. CONCLUSION: The QIDS-C₁₆ and the QIDS-SR₁₆ are suitable for use in adolescents.
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: 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: Joseph T Coyle; Daniel S Pine; Dennis S Charney; Lydia Lewis; Charles B Nemeroff; Gabrielle A Carlson; Paramjit Toor Joshi; David Reiss; Richard D Todd; Martha Hellander Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: U Rao; N D Ryan; B Birmaher; R E Dahl; D E Williamson; J Kaufman; R Rao; B Nelson Journal: J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 8.829
Authors: Philip Cheng; Annemarie I Luik; Cynthia Fellman-Couture; Edward Peterson; Christine L M Joseph; Gabriel Tallent; Kieulinh Michelle Tran; Brian K Ahmedani; Timothy Roehrs; Thomas Roth; Christopher L Drake Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: A Irem Sonmez; M Utku Kucuker; Charles P Lewis; Bhanu Prakash Kolla; Deniz Doruk Camsari; Jennifer L Vande Voort; Kathryn M Schak; Simon Kung; Paul E Croarkin Journal: Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry Date: 2019-10-18 Impact factor: 5.067
Authors: B Kennard; L Brown; L Hawkins; A Risi; J Radcliffe; G Emslie; T Mayes; J King; A Foxwell; J Buyukdura; J Bethel; S Naar-King; J Xu; S Lee; P Garvie; C London; M Tanney; S Thornton Journal: Cogn Behav Pract Date: 2014-05
Authors: Han Yan; Lauren Siegel; Sara Breitbart; Carolina Gorodetsky; Hernan D Gonorazky; Ivanna Yau; Cristina Go; Elizabeth Donner; Suneil K Kalia; Alfonso Fasano; Alexander G Weil; Aria Fallah; George M Ibrahim Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2020-09-15 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: A Irem Sonmez; Charles P Lewis; John D Port; Alejandra Cabello-Arreola; Caren J Blacker; Bhedita J Seewoo; Alastair J McKean; Jarrod M Leffler; Mark A Frye; Paul E Croarkin Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2020-11-11 Impact factor: 2.576
Authors: Larry K Brown; Betsy D Kennard; Graham J Emslie; Taryn L Mayes; Laura B Whiteley; James Bethel; Jiahong Xu; Sarah Thornton; Mary R Tanney; Linda A Hawkins; Patricia A Garvie; Geetha A Subramaniam; Carol J Worrell; Laura W Stoff Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2016-01-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Christopher A Wall; Paul E Croarkin; Mandie J Maroney-Smith; Laura M Haugen; Joshua M Baruth; Mark A Frye; Shirlene M Sampson; John D Port Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 2.576