The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Letter to the EditorFull Access

Why the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Endures

To the Editor: The review of the psychometric properties of the Hamilton depression scale by Dr. Bagby et al. included the most relevant studies published from January 1980 to May 2003 that examine both interrater reliability and validity. It clearly demonstrated that the 17-item version, which in this period has been the gold standard as the outcome measure in trials with antidepressive therapies, is a multidimensional scale.

One potential evolutionary solution for a one-dimensional gold standard, as suggested by the authors, would be to use the six core items of the dimension of depression comprising depressed mood, guilt, work and interests, psychomotor retardation, psychic anxiety, and general somatic symptoms—the 6-item Hamilton depression scale—when we measure the outcome of antidepressive interventions because this subscale has been proven to be more effective than the 17-item version in detecting differences between active drug therapy and placebo in trials on the acute therapy of depression. Also, this subscale fulfills criteria for unidimensionality. However, the authors rejected this solution, arguing that the truncated set of six items seems limited in that these items do not “permit capture of the full depressive syndrome” (p. 2174). Exactly this argument was behind the development of the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale (1), which contains 11 items covering the various aspects of the full depressive syndrome and is the opposite of what is seen in the full manic syndrome, as measured by the Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Scale (2), that, together with the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale, is still the only scale for the bipolar spectrum to fulfill the item-response theory model for unidimensionality (1, 2). In the light of this, we wonder why the authors did not mention this scale in their discussion of a replacement for the Hamilton depression scale.

In a recent study (3), we confirmed in a large sample of depressed patients that the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale and the 6-item—but not the 17-item—Hamilton depression scale have been accepted by item-response theory models to be unidimensional depression scales.

Both the 6-item Hamilton depression scale and the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale can serve as gold standards for measuring pure antidepressive activity, whereas the other 17-item Hamilton depression scale dimensions (e.g., anxiety and sleep) might serve to identify other aspects of the treatment being examined.

References

1. Bech P: The Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale (MES) in clinical trials of therapies in depressive disorders: a 20-year review of its use as an outcome measure. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2002; 106:252–264Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

2. Bech P: The Bech-Rafaelsen Mania Scale in clinical trials of therapies for bipolar disorder: 20-year review of its use as an outcome measure. CNS Drugs 2002; 16:47–63Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

3. Licht RW, Qvitzau S, Allerup P, Bech P: Validation of the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale and the Hamilton depression scale in patients with major depression: is the total score a valid measure of illness severity? Acta Psychiatr Scand 2005; 111:144–149Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar