Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T04:24:52.669Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of the QIDS-C16, QIDS-SR16, and the MADRS in an Adult Outpatient Clinical Sample

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Ira H. Bernstein ,
A. John Rush ,
Diane Stegman ,
Laurie Macleod ,
Bradley Witte  and
Madhukar H. Trivedi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: This study compared the 16-item Clinician and Self-Report versions of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-C16 and QIDS-SR16) and the 10-item Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in adult outpatients. The comparison was based on psychometric features and their performance in identifying those in a major depressive episode as defined by the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition.

Methods: Of 278 consecutive outpatients, 181 were depressed. Classical test theory, factor analysis, and item response theory were used to evaluate the psychometric features and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses.

Results: All three measures were unidimensional. All had acceptable reliability (coefficient α=.87 for MADRS10, .82 for QIDS-C16, and .80 for QIDS-SR16). Test information function was higher for the MADRS (ie, it was most sensitive to individual differences in levels of depression). The MADRS and QIDS-C16 slightly but consistently outperformed the QIDS-SR16 in differentiating between depressed versus non-depressed patients.

Conclusion: All three measures have satisfactory psychometric properties and are valid screening tools for a major depressive episode.

Type
Original Research
Information
CNS Spectrums , Volume 15 , Issue 7 , July 2010 , pp. 458 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Montgomery, SA, Äsberg, M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979; 134: 382–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Rush, AJ, Trivedi, MH, Ibrahim, HM, 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. Biol Psychiatry. 2003; 54(5): 573–583. Erratum p. 585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Trivedi, MH, Rush, AJ, Ibrahim, HM, et al. The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating (IDS-C) and Self-Report (IDS-SR), and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating (QIDS-C) and Self-Report (QIDS-SR) in public sector patients with mood disorders: a psychometric evaluation. Psychol Med. 2004; 34(1): 73–82.Google Scholar
4.Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed, Text Rev. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2000.Google Scholar
5.Sheehan, DV, Lecrubier, Y, Sheehan, KH et al. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998; 59(Suppl 20): 22–33.Google ScholarPubMed
6.First, MB, Spitzer, RL, Gibbon, M, Williams, JBW. Structure Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders - Patient Edition (SCID-I/P, version 2.0). New York, NY: Biometrics Research Department, NY State Psychiatric Institute; 1997.Google Scholar
7.Svanborg, P, Asberg, M. A comparison between the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the self-rating version of the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). J Affect Disord. 2001; 64(2–3): 203–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Svanborg, P, Ekselius, L. Self-assessment of DSM-IV criteria for major depression in psychiatric out- and inpatients. Nord J Psychiatry. 2003; 57(4): 291–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Rush, AJ, Carmody, TJ, Reimitz, PE. The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): clinician (IDS-C) and self-report (IDS-SR) ratings of depressive symptoms. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2000; 9: 45–59.Google Scholar
10.Rush, AJ, Bernstein, IH, Trivedi, MH et al. An evaluation of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: a Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial report. Biol Psychiatry. 2006; 59(6): 493–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Horn, JL. An empirical comparison of various methods for estimating common factor scores. Educ Psychol Meas. 1965; 25: 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Humphreys, LG, Ilgen, D. Note on a criterion for the number of common factors. Educ Psychol Meas. 1969; 29: 571–578.Google Scholar
13.Humphreys, LG, Montanelli, RG Jr.An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 1975; 10: 193–206.Google Scholar
14.Montanelli, RG Jr, Humphreys, LG. Latent roots of random data correlation matrices with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal: a Monte Carlo study. Psychometrika. 1976; 41: 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Lord, FM. Applications of Item Response Theory for Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA; 1980.Google Scholar
16.Samejima, F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychol Monogr. 1969; 4: 2.Google Scholar
17.Samejima, F. Graded response model. In: van Linden, W, Hambleton, RK, eds. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1997: 85–100.Google Scholar
18.Carmody, TJ, Rush, AJ, Bernstein, IH, Brannan, S, Husain, MM, Trivedi, MH. Making clinicians lives easier: Guidance on use of the QIDS self-report in place of the MADRS. J Affect Disord. 2006; 95(1–3): 115–118.Google Scholar
19.Carmody, TJ, Rush, AJ, Bernstein, IH, et al. The Montgomery Asberg and the Hamilton ratings of depression: A comparison of measures. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2006; 16(8): 601–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Orlando, M, Sherbourne, CD, Thissen, D. Summed-score linking using item response theory: application to depression measurement. Psychol Assess. 2000; 12(3): 354–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Biggs, MM, Shores-Wilson, K, Rush, AJ, et al. A comparison of alternative assessments of depressive symptom severity: a pilot study. Psychiatry Res. 2000; 96(3): 269–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Margo, GM, Dewan, MJ, Fisher, S, Greenberg, RP. Comparison of three depression rating scales. Percept Mot Skills. 1992; 75(1): 144–146.Google Scholar
23.Rush, AJ, Giles, DE, Schlesser, MA, Fulton, CL, Weissenburger, J, Burns, C. The Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): preliminary findings. Psychiatry Res. 1986; 18(1): 65–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Kroenke, K, Spitzer, RL, Williams, JBW. The PHQ-9. Validity of a brief depression severity masure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001; 16: 606–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar