Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Development and reliability of a structured interview guide for the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SIGMA)

  • Janet B. W. Williams (a1) and Kenneth A. Kobak (a2)

Abstract

Background

The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is often used in clinical trials to select patients and to assess treatment efficacy. The scale was originally published without suggested questions for clinicians to use in gathering the information necessary to rate the items. Structured and semi-structured interview guides have been found to improve reliability with other scales.

Aims

To describe the development and test-retest reliability of a structured interview guide for the MADRS (SIGMA).

Method

A total of 162 test-retest interviews were conducted by 81 rater pairs. Each patient was interviewed twice, once by each rater conducting an independent interview.

Results

The intraclass correlation for total score between raters using the SIGMA was r = 0.93, P < 0.0001. All ten items had good to excellent interrater reliability.

Conclusions

Use of the SIGMA can result in high reliability of MADRS scores in evaluating patients with depression.

    • 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.

      Development and reliability of a structured interview guide for the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SIGMA)
      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.

      Development and reliability of a structured interview guide for the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SIGMA)
      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.

      Development and reliability of a structured interview guide for the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SIGMA)
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

Corresponding author

Janet B. W. Williams, MedAvante, Inc., 100 American Metro Blvd., Suite 106, Hamilton, NJ 08619, USA. Email: jwilliams@medavante.net

Footnotes

Hide All

Declaration of interest

None.

Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
1 Kobak, KA, Engelhardt, N, Williams, JB, Lipsitz, JD. Rater training in multicenter clinical trials: issues and recommendations. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2004; 24: 113–17.
2 Kobak, KA, Feiger, AD, Lipsitz, JD. Interview quality and signal detection in clinical trials. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 628.
3 Montgomery, SA, Åsberg, M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 1979; 134: 382–9.
4 Bagby, RM, Ryder, AG, Schuller, DR, Marshall, MB. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: has the gold standard become a lead weight? Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161: 2163–77.
5 Muller, MJ, Szegedi, A. Effects of interrater reliability of psychopathologic assessment on power and sample size calculations in clinical trials. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2002; 22: 318–25.
6 Hedlund, JL, Vieweg, BW. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: a comprehensive review. J Oper Psychiatry 1979; 10: 149–61.
7 Gibbons, RD, Clark, DC, Kupfer, DJ. Exactly what does the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale measure? J Psychiatr Res 1993; 27: 259–73.
8 Faries, D, Herrera, J, Rayamajhi, J, DeBrota, D, Demitrack, M, Potter, WZ. The responsiveness of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. J Psychiatr Res 2000; 34: 310.
9 Kobak, KA, Greist, JH, Jefferson, JW, Mundt, JC, Katzelnick, DJ. Computerized assessment of depression and anxiety over the telephone using interactive voice response. MD Comput 1999; 16: 64–8.
10 Mundt, JC, Katzelnick, DJ, Kennedy, SH, Eisfeld, BS, Bouffard, BB, Greist, JH. Validation of an IVRS version of the MADRS. J Psychiatr Res 2006; 40: 243–6.
11 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 Psychiatr Res 1988; 22: 312.
12 Davidson, J, Turnbull, CD, Strickland, R, Miller, R, Graves, K. The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale: reliability and validity. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1986; 73: 544–8.
13 Takahashi, N, Tomita, K, Higuchi, T, Inada, T. The inter-rater reliability of the Japanese version of the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS) using a structured interview guide for MADRS (SIGMA). Hum Psychopharmacol 2004; 19: 187–92.
14 Williams, JBW. A structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988; 45: 742–7.
15 Moberg, PJ, Lazarus, LW, Mesholam, RI, Bilker, W, Chuy, IL, Neyman, I, Markvart, V. Comparison of the standard and structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in depressed geriatric inpatients. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2001; 9: 3540.
16 Spitzer, RL, Williams, JBW, Gibbon, M, First, MB. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID). II. Multisite test-retest reliability. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1992; 49: 630–6.
17 Shear, MK, Vander Bilt, J, Rucci, P, Endicott, J, Lydiard, B, Otto, MW, Pollack, MH, Chandler, L, Williams, J, Ali, A, Frank, DM. Reliability and validity of a structured interview guide for the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (SIGH-A). Depress Anxiety 2001; 13: 166–78.
18 Williams, JBW. Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (SIGH-A). New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1996.
19 Hermens, ML, Ader, HJ, van Hout, HP, Terluin, B, van Dyck, R, de Haan, M. Administering the MADRS by telephone or face-to-face: a validity study. Ann Gen Psychiatry 2006; 5: 3.
20 Kobak, KA, Reynolds, WM, Rosenfeld, R, Greist, JH. Development and validation of a computer-administered version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Psychol Assess 1990; 2: 5663.
21 Reynolds, WM, Kobak, KA. Reliability and validity of the Hamilton Depression Inventory: a paper-and-pencil version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale clinical interview. Psychol Assess 1995; 7: 472–83.
22 Kobak, KA, Reynolds, WM, Greist, JH. Development and validation of a computer-administered version of the Hamilton Anxiety Scale. Psychol Assess 1993; 5: 487–92.
23 Kobak, KA, Kane, JM, Thase, ME, Nierenberg, AA. Why do clinical trials fail? The problem of measurement error in clinical trials: time to test new paradigms? J Clin Psychopharmacol 2007; 27: 15.
24 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn) (DSM-IV). APA, 1994.
25 Sheehan, DV, Lecrubier, Y, Sheehan, K, Amorim, P, Janavs, J, Weiller, E, Baker, R, Dunbar, G. The mini international neuropsychiatric interview (MINI): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry 1998; 59: 22–3.
26 Lipsitz, J, Kobak, K, Feiger, A, Sikich, D, Moroz, G, Engelhard, A. The Rater Applied Performance Scale: development and reliability. Psychiatry Res 2004; 127: 147–55.
27 Blacker, D, Endicott, J. Psychometric properties: concepts of reliability and validity. In Handbook of Psychiatric Measures (ed. Rush, AJ): 714. American Psychiatric Association, 2000.

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed

Development and reliability of a structured interview guide for the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (SIGMA)

  • Janet B. W. Williams (a1) and Kenneth A. Kobak (a2)
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *