Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 44
  • Cited by
    This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Devine, Janine Fliege, Herbert Kocalevent, Rüya Mierke, Annett Klapp, Burghard F. and Rose, Matthias 2016. Evaluation of Computerized Adaptive Tests (CATs) for longitudinal monitoring of depression, anxiety, and stress reactions. Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 190, p. 846.

    Hoertel, Nicolas Blanco, Carlos Peyre, Hugo Wall, Melanie M. McMahon, Kibby Gorwood, Philip Lemogne, Cédric and Limosin, Frédéric 2016. Differences in symptom expression between unipolar and bipolar spectrum depression: Results from a nationally representative sample using item response theory (IRT). Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 204, p. 24.

    Rössler, Wulf Ajdacic-Gross, Vladeta Riecher-Rössler, Anita Angst, Jules and Hengartner, Michael P. 2016. Does menopausal transition really influence mental health? Findings from the prospective long-term Zurich study. World Psychiatry, Vol. 15, Issue. 2, p. 146.

    Wittenborn, A. K. Rahmandad, H. Rick, J. and Hosseinichimeh, N. 2016. Depression as a systemic syndrome: mapping the feedback loops of major depressive disorder. Psychological Medicine, Vol. 46, Issue. 03, p. 551.

    Fried, Eiko I. 2015. Problematic assumptions have slowed down depression research: why symptoms, not syndromes are the way forward. Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6,

    Bühler, Joël Seemüller, Florian and Läge, Damian 2014. The predictive power of subgroups: An empirical approach to identify depressive symptom patterns that predict response to treatment. Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 163, p. 81.

    Emmert-Aronson, Benjamin O. Moore, Michael T. and Brown, Timothy A. 2014. Differential Item Functioning of the Symptoms of Major Depression by Race and Ethnicity: An Item Response Theory Analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, Vol. 36, Issue. 3, p. 424.

    Hoertel, Nicolas Peyre, Hugo Wall, Melanie M. Limosin, Frédéric and Blanco, Carlos 2014. Examining sex differences in DSM-IV borderline personality disorder symptom expression using Item Response Theory (IRT). Journal of Psychiatric Research, Vol. 59, p. 213.

    Li, Y. Aggen, S. Shi, S. Gao, J. Li, Y. Tao, M. Zhang, K. Wang, X. Gao, C. Yang, L. Liu, Y. Li, K. Shi, J. Wang, G. Liu, L. Zhang, J. Du, B. Jiang, G. Shen, J. Zhang, Z. Liang, W. Sun, J. Hu, J. Liu, T. Wang, X. Miao, G. Meng, H. Li, Y. Hu, C. Li, Y. Huang, G. Li, G. Ha, B. Deng, H. Mei, Q. Zhong, H. Gao, S. Sang, H. Zhang, Y. Fang, X. Yu, F. Yang, D. Liu, T. Chen, Y. Hong, X. Wu, W. Chen, G. Cai, M. Song, Y. Pan, J. Dong, J. Pan, R. Zhang, W. Shen, Z. Liu, Z. Gu, D. Wang, X. Liu, X. Zhang, Q. Flint, J. and Kendler, K. S. 2014. The structure of the symptoms of major depression: exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in depressed Han Chinese women. Psychological Medicine, Vol. 44, Issue. 07, p. 1391.

    McGrory, Sarah Doherty, Jason M Austin, Elizabeth J Starr, John M and Shenkin, Susan D 2014. Item response theory analysis of cognitive tests in people with dementia: a systematic review. BMC Psychiatry, Vol. 14, Issue. 1,

    Borsboom, Denny and Cramer, Angélique O.J. 2013. Network Analysis: An Integrative Approach to the Structure of Psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 9, Issue. 1, p. 91.

    Silverstein, B. Edwards, T. Gamma, A. Ajdacic-Gross, V. Rossler, W. and Angst, J. 2013. The role played by depression associated with somatic symptomatology in accounting for the gender difference in the prevalence of depression. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, Vol. 48, Issue. 2, p. 257.

    Stenzel, Nikola Krumm, Stefan Hartwich-Tersek, Jens Beisel, Sylvia and Rief, Winfried 2013. Psychiatric Comorbidity is Associated with Increased Skill Deficits. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, Vol. 20, Issue. 6, p. 501.

    Bergin, Jocilyn E. and Kendler, Kenneth S. 2012. Common Psychiatric Disorders and Caffeine Use, Tolerance, and Withdrawal: An Examination of Shared Genetic and Environmental Effects. Twin Research and Human Genetics, Vol. 15, Issue. 04, p. 473.

    Aggen, Steven H. Kendler, Kenneth S. Kubarych, Thomas S. and Neale, Michael C. 2011. Differential Age and Sex Effects in the Assessment of Major Depression: A Population-Based Twin Item Analysis of the DSM Criteria. Twin Research and Human Genetics, Vol. 14, Issue. 06, p. 524.

    Anderson, Philip and Madden, Ros 2011. Design and quality of ICF-compatible data items for national disability support services. Disability and Rehabilitation, Vol. 33, Issue. 9, p. 758.

    Carragher, Natacha Mewton, Louise Slade, Tim and Teesson, Maree 2011. An item response analysis of the DSM-IV criteria for major depression: Findings from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Journal of Affective Disorders, Vol. 130, Issue. 1-2, p. 92.

    Dregan, Alex Grieve, Andy van Staa, Tjeerd and Gulliford, Martin C 2011. Potential application of item-response theory to interpretation of medical codes in electronic patient records. BMC Medical Research Methodology, Vol. 11, Issue. 1,

    Krause, James S. Saunders, Lee L. Bombardier, Charles and Kalpakjian, Claire 2011. Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9: A Study of the Participants From the Spinal Cord Injury Model Systems. PM&R, Vol. 3, Issue. 6, p. 533.

    Ploubidis, G.B. and Frangou, S. 2011. Neuroticism and psychological distress: To what extent is their association due to person-environment correlation?. European Psychiatry, Vol. 26, Issue. 1, p. 1.


DSM criteria for major depression: evaluating symptom patterns using latent-trait item response models

  • DOI:
  • Published online: 01 April 2005

Background. Expert committees of clinicians have chosen diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorders with little guidance from measurement theory or modern psychometric methods. The DSM-III-R criteria for major depression (MD) are examined to determine the degree to which latent trait item response models can extract additional useful information.

Method. The dimensionality and measurement properties of the 9 DSM-III-R criteria plus duration are evaluated using dichotomous factor analysis and the Rasch and 2 parameter logistic item response models. Quantitative liability scales are compared with a binary DSM-III-R diagnostic algorithm variable to determine the ramifications of using each approach.

Results. Factor and item response model results indicated the 10 MD criteria defined a reasonably coherent unidimensional scale of liability. However, person risk measurement was not optimal. Criteria thresholds were unevenly spaced leaving scale regions poorly measured. Criteria varied in discriminating levels of risk. Compared to a binary MD diagnosis, item response model (IRM) liability scales performed far better in (i) elucidating the relationship between MD symptoms and liability, (ii) predicting the personality trait of neuroticism and future depressive episodes and (iii) more precisely estimating heritability parameters.

Conclusions. Criteria for MD largely defined a single dimension of disease liability although the quality of person risk measurement was less clear. The quantitative item response scales were statistically superior in predicting relevant outcomes and estimating twin model parameters. Item response models that treat symptoms as ordered indicators of risk rather than as counts towards a diagnostic threshold more fully exploit the information available in symptom endorsement data patterns.

Corresponding author
Dr Steven H. Aggen, Department of Psychiatry, PO Box 980126, Richmond, VA 23298-0126, USA. (Email:
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Psychological Medicine
  • ISSN: 0033-2917
  • EISSN: 1469-8978
  • URL: /core/journals/psychological-medicine
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *