Inter-rater reliability of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale as a diagnostic and outcome measure of depression in primary care

被引:40
作者
Morriss, Richard [1 ]
Leese, Morven [2 ]
Chatwin, Judy [3 ]
Baldwin, David
机构
[1] Univ Nottingham, Queens Med Ctr, Div Psychiat, Nottingham NG7 2UH, England
[2] Kings Coll London, Inst Psychiat, Hlth Serv & Populat Res Dept, London, England
[3] Univ Southampton, Div Primary Med Care, Southampton SO9 5NH, Hants, England
关键词
Depression; Primary care; Reliability; Psychometrics;
D O I
10.1016/j.jad.2008.02.013
中图分类号
R74 [神经病学与精神病学];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The inter-rater reliability of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating, Scale (HDRS) has not been examined in primary care settings with a view to using it as both a primary outcome measure and for determining entry into a trial. Methods: A semi-structured interview for the HDRS With detailed questions and scoring rules was developed for use by lay interviewers. Interviews with patients with a range of scores on the HDRS were conducted by one interviewer, audiotaped and rated by a second interviewer. 84 ratings were made by 4 raters oil 42 primary care patients over 4 sessions, giving comparisons for rater pairs. Results: The intraclass coefficient and concordance coefficient for the total HDRS score were both 0.95, with a 95% reference interval for the difference (between any pair of raters) in total HDRS score of -3.31 to 3.69, measurement error in an individual in any total score was 1.25. Inter-rater reliability did not vary with severity of depression and there was no evidence of bias in rating rater compared to the others. Weighted kappa coefficients for individual items were close to 0.6 (food) or above for all items except hypochondriasis and insight. Limitations: The inter-rater reliability of the retardation and agitation items was not assessed. Conclusions: In primary care, the 17-item HDRS delivered using a standardised interview has high overall inter-rater reliability as a primary outcome measure but a few patients may be erroneously excluded if it is used to determine study entry. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:204 / 213
页数:10
相关论文
共 43 条
  • [1] ALTMAN DG, 1993, SOME COMMON PROBLEMS, P403
  • [2] Assessment of reliability in the clinical evaluation of depressive symptoms among multiple investigators in a multicenter clinical trial
    Baca-García, E
    Blanco, C
    Sáiz-Ruiz, J
    Rico, F
    Diaz-Sastre, C
    Cicchetti, DV
    [J]. PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH, 2001, 102 (02) : 163 - 173
  • [3] The Hamilton depression rating scale: Has the gold standard become a lead weight?
    Bagby, RM
    Ryder, AG
    Schuller, DR
    Marshall, MB
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY, 2004, 161 (12) : 2163 - 2177
  • [4] The treatment of common mental health problems in general practice
    Bushnell, J
    McLeod, D
    Dowell, A
    Salmond, C
    Ramage, S
    Collings, S
    Ellis, P
    Kljakovic, M
    McBain, L
    [J]. FAMILY PRACTICE, 2006, 23 (01) : 53 - 59
  • [5] Protocol for the THREAD (THREshold for AntiDepressants) study: a randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of antidepressants plus supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression in UK general practice
    Chatwin, Judy
    Kendrick, Tony
    [J]. BMC FAMILY PRACTICE, 2007, 8 (1)
  • [6] CHMURAKRAEMER H, 1991, ACTA PSYCHIAT SCAND, V84, P167
  • [7] CICCHETTI DV, 1983, ARCH GEN PSYCHIAT, V40, P987
  • [8] Dunn G., 1989, Design and analysis of reliability studies: the statistical evaluation of measurement errors
  • [9] An Item Response analysis of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale using shared data from two pharmaceutical companies
    Evans, KR
    Sills, T
    DeBrota, DJ
    Gelwicks, S
    Engelhardt, N
    Santor, D
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, 2004, 38 (03) : 275 - 284
  • [10] The responsiveness of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale
    Faries, D
    Herrera, J
    Rayamajhi, J
    DeBrota, D
    Demitrack, M
    Potter, WZ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH, 2000, 34 (01) : 3 - 10