Screening for major depression in private practice

Ira H. Bernstein, Burdette Wendt, Suhayl J. Nasr, A. John Rush

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

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 (α=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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)87-94
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Psychiatric Practice
Volume15
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 2009

Fingerprint

Private Practice
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Logistic Models
Interviews
ROC Curve
Self Report
Analysis of Variance
Reproducibility of Results
Statistical Factor Analysis
Psychiatry
Outpatients
Regression Analysis
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Carroll Depression Rating Scale
  • Depression
  • Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression
  • Psychometrics
  • Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report
  • Rating scales
  • Symptom Check List-90

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Screening for major depression in private practice. / Bernstein, Ira H.; Wendt, Burdette; Nasr, Suhayl J.; Rush, A. John.

In: Journal of Psychiatric Practice, Vol. 15, No. 2, 03.2009, p. 87-94.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bernstein, Ira H. ; Wendt, Burdette ; Nasr, Suhayl J. ; Rush, A. John. / Screening for major depression in private practice. In: Journal of Psychiatric Practice. 2009 ; Vol. 15, No. 2. pp. 87-94.
@article{990ad87625094f67950aeb54b45435b2,
title = "Screening for major depression in private practice",
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 (α=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.",
keywords = "Carroll Depression Rating Scale, Depression, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Psychometrics, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report, Rating scales, Symptom Check List-90",
author = "Bernstein, {Ira H.} and Burdette Wendt and Nasr, {Suhayl J.} and Rush, {A. John}",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
doi = "10.1097/01.pra.0000348361.03925.b3",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "87--94",
journal = "Journal of Psychiatric Practice",
issn = "1527-4160",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Screening for major depression in private practice

AU - Bernstein, Ira H.

AU - Wendt, Burdette

AU - Nasr, Suhayl J.

AU - Rush, A. John

PY - 2009/3

Y1 - 2009/3

N2 - 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 (α=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.

AB - 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 (α=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.

KW - Carroll Depression Rating Scale

KW - Depression

KW - Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression

KW - Psychometrics

KW - Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report

KW - Rating scales

KW - Symptom Check List-90

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67650388172&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67650388172&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/01.pra.0000348361.03925.b3

DO - 10.1097/01.pra.0000348361.03925.b3

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 87

EP - 94

JO - Journal of Psychiatric Practice

JF - Journal of Psychiatric Practice

SN - 1527-4160

IS - 2

ER -