Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T15:13:14.770Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of the QIDS-C16, QIDS-SR16, and the MADRS in an Adult Outpatient Clinical Sample

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 November 2014

Ira H. Bernstein ,
A. John Rush ,
Diane Stegman ,
Laurie Macleod ,
Bradley Witte  and
Madhukar H. Trivedi
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: This study compared the 16-item Clinician and Self-Report versions of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-C16 and QIDS-SR16) and the 10-item Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in adult outpatients. The comparison was based on psychometric features and their performance in identifying those in a major depressive episode as defined by the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition.

Methods: Of 278 consecutive outpatients, 181 were depressed. Classical test theory, factor analysis, and item response theory were used to evaluate the psychometric features and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses.

Results: All three measures were unidimensional. All had acceptable reliability (coefficient α=.87 for MADRS10, .82 for QIDS-C16, and .80 for QIDS-SR16). Test information function was higher for the MADRS (ie, it was most sensitive to individual differences in levels of depression). The MADRS and QIDS-C16 slightly but consistently outperformed the QIDS-SR16 in differentiating between depressed versus non-depressed patients.

Conclusion: All three measures have satisfactory psychometric properties and are valid screening tools for a major depressive episode.

Type
Original Research
Information
CNS Spectrums , Volume 15 , Issue 7 , July 2010 , pp. 458 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

References

REFERENCES

1.Montgomery, SA, Äsberg, M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979; 134: 382–389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Rush, AJ, Trivedi, MH, Ibrahim, HM, et al. The 16-Item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS), clinician rating (QIDS-C), and self-report (QIDS-SR): a psychometric evaluation in patients with chronic major depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2003; 54(5): 573–583. Erratum p. 585.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Trivedi, MH, Rush, AJ, Ibrahim, HM, et al. The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating (IDS-C) and Self-Report (IDS-SR), and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating (QIDS-C) and Self-Report (QIDS-SR) in public sector patients with mood disorders: a psychometric evaluation. Psychol Med. 2004; 34(1): 73–82.Google Scholar
4.Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed, Text Rev. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2000.Google Scholar
5.Sheehan, DV, Lecrubier, Y, Sheehan, KH et al. The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (M.I.N.I.): the development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. J Clin Psychiatry. 1998; 59(Suppl 20): 22–33.Google ScholarPubMed
6.First, MB, Spitzer, RL, Gibbon, M, Williams, JBW. Structure Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders - Patient Edition (SCID-I/P, version 2.0). New York, NY: Biometrics Research Department, NY State Psychiatric Institute; 1997.Google Scholar
7.Svanborg, P, Asberg, M. A comparison between the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and the self-rating version of the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). J Affect Disord. 2001; 64(2–3): 203–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Svanborg, P, Ekselius, L. Self-assessment of DSM-IV criteria for major depression in psychiatric out- and inpatients. Nord J Psychiatry. 2003; 57(4): 291–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Rush, AJ, Carmody, TJ, Reimitz, PE. The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): clinician (IDS-C) and self-report (IDS-SR) ratings of depressive symptoms. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2000; 9: 45–59.Google Scholar
10.Rush, AJ, Bernstein, IH, Trivedi, MH et al. An evaluation of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: a Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial report. Biol Psychiatry. 2006; 59(6): 493–501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Horn, JL. An empirical comparison of various methods for estimating common factor scores. Educ Psychol Meas. 1965; 25: 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Humphreys, LG, Ilgen, D. Note on a criterion for the number of common factors. Educ Psychol Meas. 1969; 29: 571–578.Google Scholar
13.Humphreys, LG, Montanelli, RG Jr.An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behav Res. 1975; 10: 193–206.Google Scholar
14.Montanelli, RG Jr, Humphreys, LG. Latent roots of random data correlation matrices with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal: a Monte Carlo study. Psychometrika. 1976; 41: 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Lord, FM. Applications of Item Response Theory for Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA; 1980.Google Scholar
16.Samejima, F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychol Monogr. 1969; 4: 2.Google Scholar
17.Samejima, F. Graded response model. In: van Linden, W, Hambleton, RK, eds. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1997: 85–100.Google Scholar
18.Carmody, TJ, Rush, AJ, Bernstein, IH, Brannan, S, Husain, MM, Trivedi, MH. Making clinicians lives easier: Guidance on use of the QIDS self-report in place of the MADRS. J Affect Disord. 2006; 95(1–3): 115–118.Google Scholar
19.Carmody, TJ, Rush, AJ, Bernstein, IH, et al. The Montgomery Asberg and the Hamilton ratings of depression: A comparison of measures. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2006; 16(8): 601–611.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Orlando, M, Sherbourne, CD, Thissen, D. Summed-score linking using item response theory: application to depression measurement. Psychol Assess. 2000; 12(3): 354–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Biggs, MM, Shores-Wilson, K, Rush, AJ, et al. A comparison of alternative assessments of depressive symptom severity: a pilot study. Psychiatry Res. 2000; 96(3): 269–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Margo, GM, Dewan, MJ, Fisher, S, Greenberg, RP. Comparison of three depression rating scales. Percept Mot Skills. 1992; 75(1): 144–146.Google Scholar
23.Rush, AJ, Giles, DE, Schlesser, MA, Fulton, CL, Weissenburger, J, Burns, C. The Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): preliminary findings. Psychiatry Res. 1986; 18(1): 65–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Kroenke, K, Spitzer, RL, Williams, JBW. The PHQ-9. Validity of a brief depression severity masure. J Gen Intern Med. 2001; 16: 606–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar