Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:48:54.918Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Janet B. W. Williams  and
Kenneth A. Kobak
Janet B. W. Williams*
Affiliation:
Biometrics Research Unit, Columbia University, New York, New York
Kenneth A. Kobak
Affiliation:
MedAvante, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA
*
Janet B. W. Williams, MedAvante, Inc., 100 American Metro Blvd., Suite 106, Hamilton, NJ 08619, USA. Email: jwilliams@medavante.net
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
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.

Type
Papers
Information
The British Journal of Psychiatry , Volume 192 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 52 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2008 

Footnotes

Declaration of interest

None.

Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.

References

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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2 Kobak, KA, Feiger, AD, Lipsitz, JD. Interview quality and signal detection in clinical trials. Am J Psychiatry 2005; 162: 628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Montgomery, SA, Åsberg, M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 1979; 134: 382–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6 Hedlund, JL, Vieweg, BW. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: a comprehensive review. J Oper Psychiatry 1979; 10: 149–61.Google Scholar
7 Gibbons, RD, Clark, DC, Kupfer, DJ. Exactly what does the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale measure? J Psychiatr Res 1993; 27: 259–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 3–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 3–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14 Williams, JBW. A structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988; 45: 742–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 35–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18 Williams, JBW. Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (SIGH-A). New York State Psychiatric Institute, 1996.Google Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn) (DSM-IV). APA, 1994.Google Scholar
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.Google ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27 Blacker, D, Endicott, J. Psychometric properties: concepts of reliability and validity. In Handbook of Psychiatric Measures (ed. Rush, AJ): 7–14. American Psychiatric Association, 2000.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.