Clinical vs. self-report versions of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology in a public sector sample
Section snippets
Objectives
The accurate, rapid, and cost-efficient measurement of depressive symptoms serves both clinical and research purposes. Clinicians can gauge the benefit of treatment and make timely adjustments in the treatment plan. Research, on the other hand, can be made less costly if such measures are available. The quick inventory of depressive symptomatology (QIDS) is a 16-item scale that measures each of the nine symptom domains that define a major depressive episode based on DSM-IV TR (American
Subjects
TMAP was conducted in accordance with international guidelines for good clinical practice and the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the institutional review boards at The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and the University of Texas, Austin, as well as by each local institutional review board where applicable. Patients provided written informed consent prior to study participation.
The participants in this report were previously described adult outpatients with
Response and remission
In terms of response, the QIDS-C16 and QIDS-SR16 agreed in 88% of patients. The remaining 12% were divided equally between cases in which response was declared based on the QIDS-C16 but not on the QIDS-SR16 and vice versa. In terms of remission, the two scales agreed 94% of the time. The disagreements were also split nearly equally: in 2% of the cases, patients remitted according to the QIDS-C16 but not the QIDS-SR16, while in 4% of cases, the converse was true.
Effect sizes
Table 1 presents effect sizes for
Discussion
This study found that the QIDS-C16 and the QIDS-SR16 are very similar to one another. These results are very similar to those by Rush et al. (2006). The finding of greatest clinical significance is that the two versions are highly comparable. Individual domains relate equally well to overall depression with the two scales. The largest difference involved the relative infrequency with which clinicians used the most extreme category for one item, restlessness/agitation. If anything, the
Acknowledgements
This project was funded in part by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), National Institutes of Health (MH-68851 to the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas, A. John Rush, M.D., PI, and by MH-68852 to the University of Texas at Arlington, Ira H. Bernstein, Ph.D., PI). This research was also supported by NIMH Grant MH-53799, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Meadows Foundation, the Lightner-Sams Foundation, the Nanny Hogan Boyd Charitable Trust, the Texas
References (32)
- et al.
An item response analysis of the Hamilton depression rating scale using shared data from two pharmaceutical companies
Journal of Psychiatric Research
(2004) - et al.
Background and rationale for the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR∗D) study
Psychiatric Clinics of North America
(2003) - et al.
Exactly what does the Hamilton depression rating scale measure?
Journal of Psychiatric Research
(1993) - et al.
Race/ethnicity and depressive symptoms: a cross-cultural/ethnic comparison among university students in East Asia, North and South America
Social Science and Medicine
(2002) - et al.
Race/ethnicity and depressive symptoms in community-dwelling young adults: a differential item functioning analysis
Psychiatry Research
(2002) - et al.
Gender differences in depression: findings from the STAR∗D study
Journal of Affective Disorders
(2005) - et al.
The 16-item quick inventory of depressive symptomatology (QIDS), clinician rating (QIDS-C), and self-report (QIDS-SR): a psychometric evaluation in patients with chronic major depression
Biological Psychiatry
(2003) - et al.
Sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR∗D): rationale and design
Controlled Clinical Trials
(2004) - et al.
One-year clinical outcomes of depressed public sector outpatients: a benchmark for subsequent studies
Biological Psychiatry
(2004) - et al.
An evaluation of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology and the Hamilton rating scale for depression: a STAR∗D report
Biological Psychiatry
(2006)
Differential item functioning in a Spanish translation of the Beck Depression Inventory
Journal of Clinical Psychology
The Hamilton depression scale. Evaluation of objectivity using logistic models
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica
Study of the unidimensionality of the Yesavage-Brinck geriatric depression scale. Comparison between classical methods and Rasch’s model
Encephale
Item response theory for psychologists
Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis
Psychometrika
Cited by (48)
Improving Identification and Treatment Outcomes of Treatment-Resistant Depression Through Measurement-Based Care
2023, Psychiatric Clinics of North AmericaBrazilian instrument for assessing of eating disorders in children and adolescents
2023, Atencion PrimariaThe United States index of socioeconomic deprivation for individuals (USiDep)
2022, Personalized Medicine in PsychiatryCitation Excerpt :Thus, the performance of the USiDep in healthy populations, the medically ill, and individuals with psychiatric disorders other than MDD will require additional study. The use of the two different versions of the QIDS (clinician-rated vs self-report) in the two studies may be considered a limitation, though the level of agreement between the two versions of the scale has been found to be very high [52,53]. Because the inclusion criteria of the studies required at least a moderate level of depression severity for eligibility, it is possible that a significant association between USiDep scores and depression would emerge if a less truncated range of scores was examined, as others have reported [54].
Individual response to electroconvulsive therapy is not correlated between multiple treatment courses
2022, Journal of Affective Disorders