Cited by 483Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesReliability and Agreement in MeasurementPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Reliability and validity of a structured interview guide for the Hamilton anxiety rating scale (SIGH-A)

Open access
Shear, M. Katherine, Vander Bilt, Joni, Rucci, Paola, Endicott, Jean, Lydiard, Bruce, Otto, Michael W., Pollack, Mark H., Chandler, Linda +3 more·2001·Depression and Anxiety

Abstract

The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, a widely used clinical interview assessment tool, lacks instructions for administration and clear anchor points for the assignment of severity ratings. We developed a Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (SIGH-A) and report on a study comparing this version to the traditional form of this scale. Experienced interviewers from three Anxiety Disorders research sites conducted videotaped interviews using both traditional and structured instruments in 89 participants. A subset of the tapes was co-rated by all raters. Participants completed self-report symptom questionnaires. We observed high inter-rater and test-retest reliability using both formats. The structured format produced similar but consistently higher (+ 4.2) scores. Correlation with a self-report measure of overall anxiety was also high and virtually identical for the two versions. We conclude that in settings where extensive training is not practical, the structured scale is an acceptable alternative to the traditional Hamilton Anxiety instrument.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/da.1033

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The HAM-A showed good reliability between raters and across time, and it correlated well with comparable clinician-rated and self-report measures of depression.

    “This commonly used measure has demonstrated good levels of interrater and test-retest reliability, as well as convergent validity with similar clinician rated and self-report measures of depression symptoms (Shear et al., 2001).”

    From The role of negative affectivity and negative reactivity to emotions in predicting outcomes in the unified protocol for the transdiagnostic treatment of emotional disorders (2012) · cites this paper as Shear et al., 2001

    The Reliability section reports good HAM-A test–retest reliability (ICC 0.86) and interrater reliability (ICC 0.98). The Validity of SIGH-A as a Measure of Hamilton Anxiety Score section reports correlations with the clinician-rated SIGH-A and the self-report Beck Anxiety Inventory, but these measure anxiety, not depression symptoms. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale / structured interview guide has good inter-rater and test-retest reliability of ICC = 0.99 and α = 0.86.

    “The interview has shown good inter-rater and test-retest reliability of ICC = 0.99, α = 0.86 (Shear et al., 2001).”

    From A mobile application for panic disorder and agoraphobia: Insights from a multi-methods feasibility study (2020) · cites this paper as Shear et al., 2001

    The Reliability section reports a SIGH-A inter-rater ICC of 0.99 and describes high test-retest reliability. But its SIGH-A test-retest value is ICC = 0.89, not α = 0.86; the 0.86 reported there is the traditional HAM-A’s test-retest ICC. No page number is available in the supplied copy. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The SIGH-A provides a reliable, valid structured format for administering the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale.

    “Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (SIGH-A; Shear et al., 2001) provides a reliable, valid structured format for administering the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS; Hamilton, 1959), a widely used 14-item interviewer administered measure of anxiety.”
  • HAMA assessments were conducted by independent evaluators blind to treatment condition, with random selection for interrater reliability.

    “Independent evaluators who were blind to treatment condition conducted the HAMA assessments following the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (Shear, Vander Bilt, & Rucci, 2001) and assessments were randomly selected throughout the trial to be rated by an additional independent evaluator to ensure interrater reliability (Barlow et al., 2017).”
  • The HARS has shown good interrater and test-retest reliability and convergent validity with similar clinician-rated and self-report anxiety measures.

    “This commonly used measure has demonstrated good levels of interrater and test-retest reliability, as well as convergent validity with similar clinician rated and self-report measures of anxiety symptoms (Shear et al., 2001).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shear, M. K., Vander Bilt, J., Rucci, P., Endicott, J., Lydiard, B., Otto, M. W., Pollack, M. H., Chandler, L., Williams, J., Ali, A., & Frank, D. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • Massachusetts General Hospital (US)
  • Pfizer (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Shear, M. Katherine
Venue
Depression and Anxiety
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001
Volume
13
Issue
4
Pages
166-178
ISSN
  • 1091-4269 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-6394
OpenAlex
W1987414908
Cited by
483
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 21
FWCI
4.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Depression and Anxiety (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Pfizer
  • Massachusetts General Hospital
  • University of Pittsburgh
  • University of South Carolina
  • National Institutes of Health (5r24mh053817-05)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH53817, MH30915)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, anxiety disorders, interview training
MeSH terms
Anxiety Disorders, Humans, Interview, Psychological, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review