Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||A comparison of the QIDS-C16, QIDS-SR16, and the MADRS in an adult outpatient clinical sample|
|Source:||Bernstein, I.H.,Rush, A.J.,Stegman, D.,Macleod, L.,Witte, B.,Trivedi, M.H. (2010-07). A comparison of the QIDS-C16, QIDS-SR16, and the MADRS in an adult outpatient clinical sample. CNS Spectrums 15 (7) : 458-468. ScholarBank@NUS Repository.|
|Abstract:||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 nondepressed patients. Conclusion: All three measures have satisfactory psychometric properties and are valid screening tools for a major depressive episode. © MBL Communications Inc.|
|Source Title:||CNS Spectrums|
|Appears in Collections:||Staff Publications|
Show full item record
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
checked on Mar 8, 2018
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.