Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T11:08:00.921Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the ‘Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression’ and the ‘Montgomery-Asberg Depression rating Scale’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2015

I.P.A.M. Huijbrechts ,
P.M.J. Haffmans ,
K. Jonker ,
A. van Dijke  and
E. Hoencamp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Although the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) is the most frequently used rating scale for quantifying depressive states, it has been criticized for its reliability and its usability in clinical practice. This criticism is less applying to the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Goal of the present study is to investigate the reliability and validity, and clinical relationship between the HRSD and the MADRS. For 60 out-patients with diagnosed depression (DSM IV296.2x, 296.3x, 300.40 and 311.00), the HRSD and MADRS were scored at baseline and 6 weeks later by an independent rater according to a structured interview. Also the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) was assessed by a psychiatrist. Satisfying agreement was found between the totalscores (r= .75, p>.000 en r=.92, p>.000 respectively, at baseline and 6 weeks later). Furthermore agreement was found between the items of both scales, and these agree with the clinical impression. The reliability of the MADRS is more stable than the reliability of the HRSD (α = .6367 and α =.8900 vs α = .2193 and α = .8362 at baseline and at endpoint respectively). Considering the ease of scoring both scales in one interview and the widely international use of the HRSD, scoring both the HRSD and the MADRS to measure the severity of a depression seems to be an acceptabel covenant.

Keywords

HRSDMADRSagreementreliabilityHRSDMADRSovereenstemminginterne consistentie
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , March 1999 , pp. 34 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Scandinavian College of Neuropsychopharmacology 1999

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

Literatuur

1.Hamilton, M. A rating scale for depression. Neurol Neurosurg Psychiat 1960; 23: 56–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Snaith, RP. Present use of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: Observations on method of assessment in research of depressive disorders. Br J Psychiat 1996; 168: 594–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Zitman, FG, Griez, EJL. Meetschalen voor angst en depressie. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 1990; 134: 845–8.Google Scholar
4.Zitman, FG, Griez, EJL, Hooijer, C. Standaardisering Depressievra-genlijsten. Tijdschr Psychiat 1989; 31: 114–23.Google Scholar
5.Montgomery, S, Asberg, M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiat 1979; 134: 382–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Bech, P, Kastrup, M, Rafaelsen, OJ. Mini compendium of rating scales for states of anxiety, depression, mania, schizophrenia with corresponding DSM-III symptomes. Brüssel: VUB Press, 1989.Google Scholar
7.Dratcu, L, Costa Ribeiro, L da, Calil, HM. Depression assessment in Brazil. The first application of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Br J Psychiat. 1987; 150: 797–800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Maier, W, Philipp, M, Heuser, I, Schlegel, S, Buller, R, Wetzel, H. Improving depression severity assessment - I. Reliability, internal validity and sensitivity to change of three observer depression scales. J Psychiat Res 1988; 22: 3–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Guy, W. ECDEU assessment planned for psychopharmacology. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Institute of Mental Health; 1976.Google Scholar
10.Hoencamp, E, Betten, I, Haffmans, PMJ. De Tussenbeoordelaarsbe-trouwbaarheid van de Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. Acta Neuropsychiat 1992; 4: 86–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Hartong, EGTM, Goekoop, JG. De Montgomery-Asberg beoorde-lingsschaal voor depressie. Tijdschr Psychiat 1985; 27: 657–68.Google Scholar
12.Korner, A, Nielsen, BM, Eschen, F, et al. Quantifying depressive symptomatology: inter-rater reliability and inter-item correlations. J Affect Disord 1990; 20: 143–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Galinowski, A, Lehert, P. Structural Validity of MADRS during antidepressant treatment. Int clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 10: 157–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed