James J Prisciandaro1, Bryan K Tolliver2. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, United States. Electronic address: priscian@musc.edu. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are among the most widely used outcome measures for clinical trials of medications for Bipolar Disorder (BD). Nonetheless, very few studies have examined the measurement characteristics of the YMRS and MADRS in individuals with BD using modern psychometric methods. The present study evaluated the YMRS and MADRS in the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD (STEP-BD) study using Item Response Theory (IRT). METHODS: Baseline data from 3716 STEP-BD participants were available for the present analysis. The Graded Response Model (GRM) was fit separately to YMRS and MADRS item responses. Differential item functioning (DIF) was examined by regressing a variety of clinically relevant covariates (e.g., sex, substance dependence) on all test items and on the latent symptom severity dimension, within each scale. RESULTS: Both scales: 1) contained several items that provided little or no psychometric information, 2) were inefficient, in that the majority of item response categories did not provide incremental psychometric information, 3) poorly measured participants outside of a narrow band of severity, 4) evidenced DIF for nearly all items, suggesting that item responses were, in part, determined by factors other than symptom severity. LIMITATIONS: Limited to outpatients; DIF analysis only sensitive to certain forms of DIF. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides evidence for significant measurement problems involving the YMRS and MADRS. More work is needed to refine these measures and/or develop suitable alternative measures of BD symptomatology for clinical trials research.
BACKGROUND: The Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are among the most widely used outcome measures for clinical trials of medications for Bipolar Disorder (BD). Nonetheless, very few studies have examined the measurement characteristics of the YMRS and MADRS in individuals with BD using modern psychometric methods. The present study evaluated the YMRS and MADRS in the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD (STEP-BD) study using Item Response Theory (IRT). METHODS: Baseline data from 3716 STEP-BD participants were available for the present analysis. The Graded Response Model (GRM) was fit separately to YMRS and MADRS item responses. Differential item functioning (DIF) was examined by regressing a variety of clinically relevant covariates (e.g., sex, substance dependence) on all test items and on the latent symptom severity dimension, within each scale. RESULTS: Both scales: 1) contained several items that provided little or no psychometric information, 2) were inefficient, in that the majority of item response categories did not provide incremental psychometric information, 3) poorly measured participants outside of a narrow band of severity, 4) evidenced DIF for nearly all items, suggesting that item responses were, in part, determined by factors other than symptom severity. LIMITATIONS: Limited to outpatients; DIF analysis only sensitive to certain forms of DIF. CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides evidence for significant measurement problems involving the YMRS and MADRS. More work is needed to refine these measures and/or develop suitable alternative measures of BD symptomatology for clinical trials research.
Authors: Liliana Dell'Osso; Stefano Pini; Giovanni B Cassano; Concettina Mastrocinque; Regine Anna Seckinger; Marco Saettoni; Alessandra Papasogli; Scott A Yale; Xavier F Amador Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: D V Sheehan; Y Lecrubier; K H Sheehan; P Amorim; J Janavs; E Weiller; T Hergueta; R Baker; G C Dunbar Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 1998 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Alan J Gelenberg; Michael E Thase; Roger E Meyer; Frederick K Goodwin; Martin M Katz; Helena Chmura Kraemer; William Z Potter; Richard C Shelton; Maurizio Fava; Arif Khan; Madhukar H Trivedi; Philip T Ninan; John J Mann; Susan Bergeson; Jean Endicott; James H Kocsis; Andrew C Leon; Husseini K Manji; Jerrold F Rosenbaum Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Jane N Kogan; Michael W Otto; Mark S Bauer; Ellen B Dennehy; David J Miklowitz; Hong-Wei Zhang; Terence Ketter; Matthew V Rudorfer; Stephen R Wisniewski; Michael E Thase; Joseph Calabrese; Gary S Sachs Journal: Bipolar Disord Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 6.744
Authors: Krzysztof Pietruczuk; Katarzyna A Lisowska; Karol Grabowski; Jerzy Landowski; Jacek M Witkowski Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Yasser Khazaal; Kyrre Breivik; Joel Billieux; Daniele Zullino; Gabriel Thorens; Sophia Achab; Gerhard Gmel; Anne Chatton Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-08-27 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Karoline Krane-Gartiser; Andreas Asheim; Ole Bernt Fasmer; Gunnar Morken; Arne E Vaaler; Jan Scott Journal: Int J Bipolar Disord Date: 2018-03-07
Authors: Krzysztof Pietruczuk; Katarzyna A Lisowska; Karol Grabowski; Jerzy Landowski; Wiesław J Cubała; Jacek M Witkowski Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Yasser Khazaal; Fares Zine El Abiddine; Louise Penzenstadler; Djamal Berbiche; Ghada Bteich; Saeideh Valizadeh-Haghi; Lucien Rochat; Sophia Achab; Riaz Khan; Anne Chatton Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-24 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Andreas Heinz; Philipp E Sischka; Carolina Catunda; Alina Cosma; Irene García-Moya; Nelli Lyyra; Anne Kaman; Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer; William Pickett Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 4.612