Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-4lvx9 Total loading time: 0.224 Render date: 2021-09-26T12:16:08.945Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Rating antidepressant efficacy with naturalistic live versus structured videotaped interviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

E Corruble
Affiliation:
Service de Psychiatrie - Groupe Hospitalier Paul Brousse, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Universitê Paris XI, 12-14 Avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier, 94804Villejuif cedex
V Sabran
Affiliation:
Service de Psychiatrie - Centre Hospitalier de Bicêtre, 94275Le-Kremlin-Bicêtre
C Payan
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Biostatistique et d'Informatique Médicale, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, 75743Paris cedex
AJ Puech
Affiliation:
Département de Pharmacologic, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47, Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013Paris cedex, France
J Fermanian
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Biostatistique et d'Informatique Médicale, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, 75743Paris cedex
JD Guelfi
Affiliation:
Service de Psychiatrie - Groupe Hospitalier Paul Brousse, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Universitê Paris XI, 12-14 Avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier, 94804Villejuif cedex
Get access

Summary

Two different methods were compared in the assessment of depressive symptomatology improvement: live naturalistic (N) performed by the patient's therapist, and from videotape record of structured clinical interview (VSI) assessed by an independent rater out of five psychiatrists.

Sixty-one newly admitted depressed inpatients, with a Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score above 20, were assessed before antidepressant treatment (DO), after 10 days (D10) and 4 weeks of treatment (D28). Assessments were based on the MADRS and the Depression Retardation Rating Scale (DRRS) for both N and VSI methods, and on the SCL-90-R for self-rating.

With the MADRS, the N method was shown to be more sensitive to symptomatology change than the VSI method, but the VSI method was more correlated to self-assessment than the N method was. However, these results were not replicated on the DRRS, for which an underscoring with the VSI method was evidenced as compared to the N method.

As shown in other studies, the poorest agreement between the two methods was evidenced at DO, suggesting a “novelty effect” particularly with the VSI method. This “novelty effect” may be all the more pronounced if a personality disorder is associated to depression. Consequently, information concerning each patient before rating videotapes is needed, as well as investigations in the field of depression and personality disorders.

The greater change observed in MADRS with the N method as compared to the VSI method, may be due non-specific factors related mostly to therapist expectations by comparison to neutral raters. This hypothesis should be tested in the placebo group of a double-blind study, and, if confirmed, the use of VSI methods, by minimising non-specific factors of improvement due to therapist expectations, may decrease the placebo response in antidepressant drug trials.

Type
Original article
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier, Paris 1998

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

revised American Psychiatric Association third editionDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 1987 APA Washington DCGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, NC, Grove, WM, Shapiro, RW, Keller, MB, Hirsch-feld, RMA, Mac Donald-Scott, PReliability of lifetime diagnosis Arch Gen Psychiatry 38 1981 400405CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andreasen, NC, Mac Donald Scott, P, Grove, WM, Keller, MB, Shapiro, RW, Hirschfeld, RMAAssessment of reliability in multicenter collaborative research with a videotape approach Am J Psychiatry 139 1982 876882Google ScholarPubMed
Ball, CJ, Mac Laren, PMComparability of face-to-face and videolink administration of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Am J Psychiatry 152 1995 958959Google ScholarPubMed
Barnes, TRE, Trauer, TReliability and validity of a tardive dyskinesia videotape rating technique Br J Psychiatry 140 1982 508515CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartels, M, Zeller, ETetrabenazine therapy of chronic spontaneous oral dyskinesia: a video and EMG-controlled study Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 234 1984 172174CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartko, JJThe intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability Psychol Rep 19 1966 311CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bobon, DP, Mormont, C, Mirel, JA semistructured psychopathological interview conceived for the AMDP-3 scale and timeblind evaluation of videotapes Acta Psychiat Belg 78 1978 606618Google Scholar
Cicchetti, DVAssessing interrater reliability for rating scales: resolving some basic issues Br J Psychiat 129 1976 452456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, DV, Prusoff, BAReliability of depression and associated clinical symptoms Arch Gen Psychiatry 40 1983 987990CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coryell, W, Winokur, G, Andreasen, NCEffect of case definition on affective disorders rates Am J Psychiatry 138 1981 11061109Google Scholar
Derogatis, LRSCL-90-R Version Manual I —Clinical Psychometrics Research Unit 1977 John Hopkins University School of Medicine BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
Dixon, WJBMDP Statistical Software Manual 1992 University of California Press, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
Fermanian, JAssessment of agreement between two observers: quantitative case Rev Epidém Santé Publ 32 1984 408413Google Scholar
Fisher, RAOn the probable error of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample Metron 1 1921 3Google Scholar
Fleck, MPA, Guelfi, JD, Poirier-Littré, MF, Lôo, HApplication of a structured interview guide for four depression scales Encéphale XX 1994 479486Google Scholar
Fuchs, A, Hehnke, U, Erhart, C, Schell, C, Pramshohler, B, Dan-ninger, B, Schautzer, FVideo Rating Analysis of effect of maprotiline in patients with dementia and depression Pharmacopsychiat 26 1993 3741CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guelfi, JDL'évaluation clinique standardisée en psychiatrie, tome 1 1993 Éditions Médicales Pierre Fabre BoulogneGoogle Scholar
Hall, JReliability of ward rating scales Br J Psychiatry 125 1974 248255CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, MA rating scale for depression J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 23 1960 5662CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaselkis, CA, Cook, EH, Fletcher, KE, Leventhal, BLClonidine treatment of hyperactive and impulsive children with autistic disorder J Clin Psychophannacology 12 1992 322327Google Scholar
Jouvent, R, Frechette, D, Binoux, F, Lancrenon, S, des Lauriers, ALe ralentissement psychomoteur dans les états dépressifs: construction d'une échelle d'évaluation quantitative Encéphale VI 1980 4158Google Scholar
Katz, MM, Itil, TMVideo methodology for research in psychopathology and psychopharmacology Arch Gen Psychiatry 31 1974 204210CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, JC, Mac Clelland, HA, Kerr, TAVideotape technique in assessing antidepressants Br J Clin Pharmacol 4 1977 227S232SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, S, Asberg, MA new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change Br J Psychiatry 134 1979 382389CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renfordt, E, Busch, HTimeblind analysis of TV-stored interviews: an objective method to study antidepressive drugeffects Int Pharmacopsychiatry 11 1976 129134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, LE, Adams, PB, Uysal, S, Hallin, A, Campbell, M, Small, AMA comparison of live and videotape ratings: clomipramine and haloperidol in autism Psychopharmacol Bull 31 1995 371378Google ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, RL, Endicott, J, Robins, EResearch Diagnostic Criteria: rationale and reliability Arch Gen Psychiatry 35 1978 773782CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widlöcher, DPsychomotor retardation: clinical, theoretical and psychometric aspects Psychiatr Clin North Am 6 1983 2740CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, JA structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Arch Gen Psychiatry 45 1988 742747CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wing, JK, Birley, JLT, Cooper, JE, Graham, P, Isaacs, ADReliability of a procedure for measuring and classifying “Present Psychiatric State” Br J Psychiatry 113 1967 499515CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Rating antidepressant efficacy with naturalistic live versus structured videotaped interviews
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Rating antidepressant efficacy with naturalistic live versus structured videotaped interviews
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Rating antidepressant efficacy with naturalistic live versus structured videotaped interviews
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *