Advanced Search

The American Journal of Psychiatry, VOL. 162, No. 12

Letter to the Editor | December 01, 2005

Why the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Endures

CHING-LIN HSIEH, Ph.D.; CHENG-HIS HSIEH, M.D.

Am J Psychiatry 2005;162:2395-2395. 10.1176/appi.ajp.162.12.2395

Article

References

text A A A

To the Editor: The article by Dr. Bagby et al. presented a thorough review and argued persuasively for the rejection of the Hamilton depression scale as the gold standard for the measurement of depression. The results are particularly useful for those who might consider using the scale in a clinical trial.

However, we would like to raise a few concerns regarding the psychometric terms and the statistical indices used in the study. First, the authors used "predictive validity" to determine the ability of the Hamilton depression scale to detect change in depression after treatment. However, predictive validity is commonly used to predict future health status or use of health services. For example, Lahey et al. (1) examined the predictive validity of the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to predict 3-year symptoms and associated impairment. To describe the extent of a scale’s ability to detect change, "responsiveness" is often used in the literature (2).

Second, Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r) is not appropriate to be used to summarize the item-level agreement (i.e., interrater reliability and retest reliability) (3) of the Hamilton depression scale. Pearson’s r examines the level of linear association—but not agreement—between two (continuous) measurements whose distributions are assumed to follow the normal curve. However, the measurement level of each item of the scale is ordinal. Instead, the weighted kappa examines the agreement between ordinal measurements and adjusts for chance agreement and level of agreement and is the appropriate index to be used in this instance (3). The drawbacks of using Pearson’s r in examining item-level reliability should have been noted.

Third, the purposes of the criteria used for appraising reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.70 reflecting adequate reliability or Pearson’s r>0.7 indicating acceptable reliability) of the Hamilton depression scale were not clearly specified. The criteria used for appraising reliability in their study are acceptable for research purposes (i.e., for group comparisons) but not for clinical application (i.e., for individual comparisons) (3). For example, if the retest reliability coefficient of a scale is 0.7 (e.g., r=0.7), it means that only 49% of the variance in the data is accounted for (or up to 51% of measurement errors) between test and retest measurement. A higher benchmark (e.g., alpha ≥0.90) for appraising the reliability of a measure is suggested for monitoring an individual’s score (2).

The concerns we raised do not affect the main conclusion of this article. However, they should be clarified for readers.

References

Lahey BB, Pelham WE, Loney J, Kipp H, Ehrhardt A, Lee SS, Willcutt EG, Hartung CM, Chronis A, Massetti G: Three-year predictive validity of DSM-IV attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children diagnosed at 4–6 years of age. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161:2014–2020[PubMed][CrossRef]

Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002; 11:193–205[PubMed][CrossRef]

Tooth LR, Ottenbacher KJ: The kappa statistic in rehabilitation research: an examination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85:1371–1376[PubMed][CrossRef]

Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002; 11:193–205[PubMed][CrossRef]

Tooth LR, Ottenbacher KJ: The kappa statistic in rehabilitation research: an examination. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2004; 85:1371–1376[PubMed][CrossRef]

CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.

Submit a Comments

Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of JBJS editorial staff.

* = Required Field

Comment Author(s)*(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)

Example: John Doe

Affiliation & Institution*

Comment Title*

Comment*

Cancel

Print
PDF
E-mail

Recipient(s) will receive an email with a link (good for 72 hours) to 'Why the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Endures' and do not need to have American Journal of Psychiatry account to access the content.
Your Name:*
Example: John Doe

Email Address:* CC Me:
Enter your valid email address. Example: jdoe@example.com

Recipient's Email Address:*
Separate multiple email address with semi-colons (up to 5).

Subject:* 's American Journal of Psychiatry: 'Why the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Endures'
Subject for your email.

Message:
(Optional, message will truncate at 1000 characters)

Processing your request... Please Wait...

Copyright © in the material you requested is held by The American Psychiatric Association (unless otherwise noted). This email ability is provided as a courtesy, and by using it you agree that you are requesting the material solely for personal, non-commercial use, and that it is subject to The American Psychiatric Association's Terms of Use. The information provided in order to email this topic will not be used to send unsolicited email, nor will it be furnished to third parties. Please refer to The American Psychiatric Association's Privacy Policy for further information.

Copyright © American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.
Share
Get Citation

CHING-LIN HSIEH, CHENG-HIS HSIEH; Why the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Endures. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2005 Dec;162(12):2395-2395.

Download citation file:

RIS (Zotero)

EndNote

BibTex

Medlars

ProCite

RefWorks

Reference Manager

Copyright © American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.
Reprints