Comparison of self-report and clinician ratings on two inventories of depressive symptomatology

A. John Rush, Thomas J. Carmody, Hisham M. Ibrahim, Madhukar H. Trivedi, Melanie M. Biggs, Kathy Shores-Wilson, M. Lynn Crismon, Marcia G. Toprac, T. Michael Kashner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

74 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated the concordance between the self-report and the clinician-rated versions of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-30) and between the two versions of the briefer 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-16). Methods: Data were gathered for 544 adult outpatients with psychotic (N=106) or nonpsychotic (N=438) major depressive disorder at 14 public sector mental health clinics in the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Data for the QIDS-16 were extracted from the IDS-30. Baseline scores and scores from the final study visit at or before month 12 were analyzed. The clinician-rated and the self-report versions of each scale were compared in their identification of response to treatment and remission. Results: The average baseline IDS-SR-30 total score was 2.2 points higher (indicating greater severity) than the IDS-C-30 score; the average QIDS-SR-16 total score, was only .3 points higher than the QIDS-C-16 seorei The IDS-SR-30 and the IDS-C-30, as well as the QIDS-C-16 and QIDS-SR-16, agreed substantially in classifying response and remission for patients, regardless of whether the patients had psychotic features. None of a large number of clinical and demographic features accounted for differences between the QIDS-SM-16 and QIDS-C-16 total scores. Conclusions: Either the IDS-30 or the QIDS-16 self-report adequately assesses depressive symptom severity among public-sector outpatients with major depressive disorder. The briefer QIDS-16 may be preferred to save time and cost.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)829-837
Number of pages9
JournalPsychiatric Services
Volume57
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2006

Fingerprint

Self Report
rating
Equipment and Supplies
Public Sector
Major Depressive Disorder
public sector
Outpatients
IDS 30
medication
mental health
Mental Health
Demography
Depression
Costs and Cost Analysis
costs

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health(social science)
  • Health Professions(all)

Cite this

Comparison of self-report and clinician ratings on two inventories of depressive symptomatology. / Rush, A. John; Carmody, Thomas J.; Ibrahim, Hisham M.; Trivedi, Madhukar H.; Biggs, Melanie M.; Shores-Wilson, Kathy; Crismon, M. Lynn; Toprac, Marcia G.; Kashner, T. Michael.

In: Psychiatric Services, Vol. 57, No. 6, 06.2006, p. 829-837.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9089b0d11ccd4504847e7c55fc98958b,
title = "Comparison of self-report and clinician ratings on two inventories of depressive symptomatology",
abstract = "Objective: This study evaluated the concordance between the self-report and the clinician-rated versions of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-30) and between the two versions of the briefer 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-16). Methods: Data were gathered for 544 adult outpatients with psychotic (N=106) or nonpsychotic (N=438) major depressive disorder at 14 public sector mental health clinics in the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Data for the QIDS-16 were extracted from the IDS-30. Baseline scores and scores from the final study visit at or before month 12 were analyzed. The clinician-rated and the self-report versions of each scale were compared in their identification of response to treatment and remission. Results: The average baseline IDS-SR-30 total score was 2.2 points higher (indicating greater severity) than the IDS-C-30 score; the average QIDS-SR-16 total score, was only .3 points higher than the QIDS-C-16 seorei The IDS-SR-30 and the IDS-C-30, as well as the QIDS-C-16 and QIDS-SR-16, agreed substantially in classifying response and remission for patients, regardless of whether the patients had psychotic features. None of a large number of clinical and demographic features accounted for differences between the QIDS-SM-16 and QIDS-C-16 total scores. Conclusions: Either the IDS-30 or the QIDS-16 self-report adequately assesses depressive symptom severity among public-sector outpatients with major depressive disorder. The briefer QIDS-16 may be preferred to save time and cost.",
author = "Rush, {A. John} and Carmody, {Thomas J.} and Ibrahim, {Hisham M.} and Trivedi, {Madhukar H.} and Biggs, {Melanie M.} and Kathy Shores-Wilson and Crismon, {M. Lynn} and Toprac, {Marcia G.} and Kashner, {T. Michael}",
year = "2006",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1176/appi.ps.57.6.829",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "57",
pages = "829--837",
journal = "Psychiatric Services",
issn = "1075-2730",
publisher = "American Psychiatric Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of self-report and clinician ratings on two inventories of depressive symptomatology

AU - Rush, A. John

AU - Carmody, Thomas J.

AU - Ibrahim, Hisham M.

AU - Trivedi, Madhukar H.

AU - Biggs, Melanie M.

AU - Shores-Wilson, Kathy

AU - Crismon, M. Lynn

AU - Toprac, Marcia G.

AU - Kashner, T. Michael

PY - 2006/6

Y1 - 2006/6

N2 - Objective: This study evaluated the concordance between the self-report and the clinician-rated versions of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-30) and between the two versions of the briefer 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-16). Methods: Data were gathered for 544 adult outpatients with psychotic (N=106) or nonpsychotic (N=438) major depressive disorder at 14 public sector mental health clinics in the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Data for the QIDS-16 were extracted from the IDS-30. Baseline scores and scores from the final study visit at or before month 12 were analyzed. The clinician-rated and the self-report versions of each scale were compared in their identification of response to treatment and remission. Results: The average baseline IDS-SR-30 total score was 2.2 points higher (indicating greater severity) than the IDS-C-30 score; the average QIDS-SR-16 total score, was only .3 points higher than the QIDS-C-16 seorei The IDS-SR-30 and the IDS-C-30, as well as the QIDS-C-16 and QIDS-SR-16, agreed substantially in classifying response and remission for patients, regardless of whether the patients had psychotic features. None of a large number of clinical and demographic features accounted for differences between the QIDS-SM-16 and QIDS-C-16 total scores. Conclusions: Either the IDS-30 or the QIDS-16 self-report adequately assesses depressive symptom severity among public-sector outpatients with major depressive disorder. The briefer QIDS-16 may be preferred to save time and cost.

AB - Objective: This study evaluated the concordance between the self-report and the clinician-rated versions of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-30) and between the two versions of the briefer 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-16). Methods: Data were gathered for 544 adult outpatients with psychotic (N=106) or nonpsychotic (N=438) major depressive disorder at 14 public sector mental health clinics in the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Data for the QIDS-16 were extracted from the IDS-30. Baseline scores and scores from the final study visit at or before month 12 were analyzed. The clinician-rated and the self-report versions of each scale were compared in their identification of response to treatment and remission. Results: The average baseline IDS-SR-30 total score was 2.2 points higher (indicating greater severity) than the IDS-C-30 score; the average QIDS-SR-16 total score, was only .3 points higher than the QIDS-C-16 seorei The IDS-SR-30 and the IDS-C-30, as well as the QIDS-C-16 and QIDS-SR-16, agreed substantially in classifying response and remission for patients, regardless of whether the patients had psychotic features. None of a large number of clinical and demographic features accounted for differences between the QIDS-SM-16 and QIDS-C-16 total scores. Conclusions: Either the IDS-30 or the QIDS-16 self-report adequately assesses depressive symptom severity among public-sector outpatients with major depressive disorder. The briefer QIDS-16 may be preferred to save time and cost.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33744940576&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33744940576&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1176/appi.ps.57.6.829

DO - 10.1176/appi.ps.57.6.829

M3 - Article

C2 - 16754760

AN - SCOPUS:33744940576

VL - 57

SP - 829

EP - 837

JO - Psychiatric Services

JF - Psychiatric Services

SN - 1075-2730

IS - 6

ER -