OBJECTIVES: The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Modified (PHQ-9M) is a self-report tool used to assess the presence and severity of depressive symptoms in teenagers. Despite widespread use in primary care clinics and psychiatric settings, the PHQ-9M has not been validated nor are its psychometric properties adequately understood for the adolescent population. This study sought to examine the psychometrics of the PHQ-9M in treatment-seeking, depressed adolescents at a psychiatric psychopharmacology clinic who were concurrently assessed with the Children's Depression Rating Scale Revised (CDRS-R) and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Adolescent (17-item) Self-Report (QIDS-A17-SR). METHODS: Adolescents (N = 160) aged 13 through 18 years with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, determined on the basis of a clinical interview and semi-structured interview using the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Present and Lifetime Version, were assessed for severity of depressive symptoms with the PHQ-9M, CDRS-R (adolescent interview only), and QIDS-A17-SR assessments at baseline, 4, and 8 weeks. Classical test theory analysis was used to evaluate the internal consistency and dimensionality of the PHQ-9M. Convergent validity was evaluated via intraclass correlations of the PHQ-9M with the CDRS-R and QIDS-A17-SR. Sensitivity to treatment response was also evaluated. RESULTS: The internal consistency (Cronbach's coefficient α) at baseline, 4, and 8 weeks was 0.879, 0.859, and 0.827 for the PHQ-9M; 0.739, 0.835, and 0.867 for CDRS-R; and 0.712, 0.777, and 0.804 for QIDS-A17-SR, respectively. The PHQ-9M had moderate convergent validity with the CDRS-R but good convergent validity with the QIDS-A17-SR. The PHQ-9M was less sensitive to changes in symptom severity than the CDRS-R and QIDS-A17-SR. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-9M appears to be a valid and reliable assessment tool for the severity of depressive symptoms in a psychiatric clinic setting. However, its utility as a treatment outcome measure may be limited compared with other available rating scales.
OBJECTIVES: The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Modified (PHQ-9M) is a self-report tool used to assess the presence and severity of depressive symptoms in teenagers. Despite widespread use in primary care clinics and psychiatric settings, the PHQ-9M has not been validated nor are its psychometric properties adequately understood for the adolescent population. This study sought to examine the psychometrics of the PHQ-9M in treatment-seeking, depressed adolescents at a psychiatric psychopharmacology clinic who were concurrently assessed with the Children's Depression Rating Scale Revised (CDRS-R) and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Adolescent (17-item) Self-Report (QIDS-A17-SR). METHODS: Adolescents (N = 160) aged 13 through 18 years with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, determined on the basis of a clinical interview and semi-structured interview using the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia-Present and Lifetime Version, were assessed for severity of depressive symptoms with the PHQ-9M, CDRS-R (adolescent interview only), and QIDS-A17-SR assessments at baseline, 4, and 8 weeks. Classical test theory analysis was used to evaluate the internal consistency and dimensionality of the PHQ-9M. Convergent validity was evaluated via intraclass correlations of the PHQ-9M with the CDRS-R and QIDS-A17-SR. Sensitivity to treatment response was also evaluated. RESULTS: The internal consistency (Cronbach's coefficient α) at baseline, 4, and 8 weeks was 0.879, 0.859, and 0.827 for the PHQ-9M; 0.739, 0.835, and 0.867 for CDRS-R; and 0.712, 0.777, and 0.804 for QIDS-A17-SR, respectively. The PHQ-9M had moderate convergent validity with the CDRS-R but good convergent validity with the QIDS-A17-SR. The PHQ-9M was less sensitive to changes in symptom severity than the CDRS-R and QIDS-A17-SR. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-9M appears to be a valid and reliable assessment tool for the severity of depressive symptoms in a psychiatric clinic setting. However, its utility as a treatment outcome measure may be limited compared with other available rating scales.
Authors: John S March; Susan Silva; Stephen Petrycki; John Curry; Karen Wells; John Fairbank; Barbara Burns; Marisa Domino; Steven McNulty; Benedetto Vitiello; Joanne Severe Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2007-10
Authors: Carl Y Zhang; Jennifer L Vande Voort; Deniz Yuruk; Jeffrey A Mills; Graham J Emslie; Betsy D Kennard; Taryn Mayes; Madhukar Trivedi; William V Bobo; Jeffrey R Strawn; Arjun P Athreya; Paul E Croarkin Journal: J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 3.031
Authors: Amitai Abramovitch; Jonathan S Abramowitz; Dean McKay; Heining Cham; Kennedy S Anderson; Lara J Farrell; Daniel A Geller; Gregory L Hanna; Sharna Mathieu; Joseph F McGuire; David R Rosenberg; S Evelyn Stewart; Eric A Storch; Sabine Wilhelm Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2022-06-11 Impact factor: 6.533
Authors: Elizabeth Koschmann; Robin Jacob; Katja Robinson; Megan Foster Friedman; Anna Foster; Natalie Rodriguez-Quintana; Jennifer Vichich; Maureen Smith; Hersheena Rajaram Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Paul E Croarkin; Ahmed Z Elmaadawi; Scott T Aaronson; G Randolph Schrodt; Richard C Holbert; Sarah Verdoliva; Karen L Heart; Mark A Demitrack; Jeffrey R Strawn Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2020-09-12 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Reem M A Shafi; Paul A Nakonezny; Magdalena Romanowicz; Aiswarya L Nandakumar; Laura Suarez; Paul E Croarkin Journal: CNS Spectr Date: 2020-04-27 Impact factor: 4.604