0
Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

1
Letter to the Editor   |    
Why the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Endures
EMMANUELLE CORRUBLE, M.D., Ph.D.; PATRICK HARDY, M.D., Ph.D.
Am J Psychiatry 2005;162:2394-a-2394. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.162.12.2394-a

To the Editor: As stated by R. Michael Bagby, Ph.D., et al. (1), the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale was designed to measure depression severity and clinical changes in depressed patients during treatment with antidepressants (2). The validity of the Hamilton depression scale was demonstrated in this patient population (3, 4).

The review by Dr. Bagby and colleagues relevantly underlined the extended use of this scale: only 13 (18.5%) of the 70 studies published since 1979 that examined the psychometric properties of the Hamilton depression scale were carried out in depressed patients.

We suggest that this use, as shown by Dr. Bagby et al., extended the original aim of the scale and that the relevance of the Hamilton depression scale should be discussed in terms of experimental design and specific objectives (3, 4). Concerning experimental design, nondepressed patients should not be taken into account when we study the validity of the Hamilton depression scale because it has been shown that the scale is not valid in nondepressed patients (3, 4). Concerning its specific objectives, the scale should not be compared to DSM-IV criteria because the two measures have different objectives; i.e., the Hamilton depression scale assesses depression severity in depressed patients, and the DSM-IV defines a diagnosis of major depression.

Finally, we do not agree with the conclusion of Dr. Bagby et al. about the lack of validity of the Hamilton depression scale, and we suggest that the scale is a victim of its success and of inappropriate extended use. Unless significant improvement of depression assessment emerges from objective biological and morphological techniques, we do not believe it is possible to create a new instrument that would be able to assess depression from a diagnostic point of view (such as DSM-IV) and a severity point of view (such as the Hamilton depression scale) in all circumstances and in all subjects.

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; 161:2163–2177
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Hamilton M: A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry  1960; 23:56–62
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Hamilton M: Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), in Handbook of Psychiatric Measures. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pp 526–529
 
Carroll BJ, Fielding JM, Blashki TG: Depression rating scales. Arch Gen Psychiatry  1973; 28:361–366
[PubMed]
 
+

References

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; 161:2163–2177
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Hamilton M: A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry  1960; 23:56–62
[PubMed]
[CrossRef]
 
Hamilton M: Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), in Handbook of Psychiatric Measures. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 2000, pp 526–529
 
Carroll BJ, Fielding JM, Blashki TG: Depression rating scales. Arch Gen Psychiatry  1973; 28:361–366
[PubMed]
 
+
+

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 APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe



Web of Science® Times Cited: 2

Related Content
Books
Topic Collections
Psychiatric News
PubMed Articles