The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The 52 symptoms of major depression: Lack of content overlap among seven common depression scales
Abstract
Background Depression severity is assessed in numerous research disciplines, ranging from the social sciences to genetics, and used as a dependent variable, predictor, covariate, or to enroll participants. The routine practice is to assess depression severity with one particular depression scale, and draw conclusions about depression in general, relying on the assumption that scales are interchangeable measures of depression. The present paper investigates to which degree 7 common depression scales differ in their item content and generalizability.Methods A content analysis is carried out to determine symptom overlap among the 7 scales via the Jaccard index (0=no overlap, 1=full overlap). Per scale, rates of idiosyncratic symptoms, and rates of specific vs. compound symptoms, are computed.Results The 7 instruments encompass 52 disparate symptoms. Mean overlap among all scales is low (0.36), mean overlap of each scale with all others ranges from 0.27 to 0.40, overlap among individual scales from 0.26 to 0.61. Symptoms feature across a mean of 3 scales, 40% of the symptoms appear in only a single scale, 12% across all instruments. Scales differ regarding their rates of idiosyncratic symptoms (0-33%) and compound symptoms (22-90%).Limitations Future studies analyzing more and different scales will be required to obtain a better estimate of the number of depression symptoms; the present content analysis was carried out conservatively and likely underestimates heterogeneity across the 7 scales.Conclusion The substantial heterogeneity of the depressive syndrome and low overlap among scales may lead to research results idiosyncratic to particular scales used, posing a threat to the replicability and generalizability of depression research. Implications and future research opportunities are discussed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Despite its medical importance MDD is poorly defined and diagnosed since its diagnosis is mostly based on data subjectively reported by the patients themselves (13–15) and lack of objective, clinically relevant outcome measure.”
From A narrative review of digital biomarkers in the management of major depressive disorder and treatment-resistant forms (2023) · cites this paper as [14]
Citations
Cites
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
Williams, J. B. W., & First, M. B. (2013) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.013.104 · Cited by 109,845
The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population
Radloff, L. S. (1977) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/014662167700100306 · Cited by 53,267
An inventory for measuring depression
BECK, A. T. (1961) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1961.01710120031004 · Cited by 38,032
Hamilton, M. (1960) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56 · Cited by 32,817
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(2012) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/springerreference_121117 · Cited by 20,772
A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change
Montgomery, S. A., & Åsberg, M. (1979) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.134.4.382 · Cited by 13,962
A self-rating depression scale
ZUNG, W. W. K. (1965) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1965.01720310065008 · Cited by 9,813
Cognitive Therapy for Depression
(2012) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e675542012-001 · Cited by 9,678
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R., Koretz, D., Merikangas, K. R., Rush, A. J., Walters, E. E., & Wang, P. S. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.23.3095 · Cited by 7,988
Insel, T., Cuthbert, B., Garvey, M., Heinssen, R., Pine, D. S., Quinn, K., Sanislow, C., & Wang, P. (2010) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379 · Cited by 7,067
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Santor, 2006, Eight Decades of Measurement in, Depress. Meas., 4, 135
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bridge Centrality: A Network Approach to Understanding Comorbidity
Jones, P. J., Ma, R., & McNally, R. J. (2019) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1080/00273171.2019.1614898 · Cited by 1,895
Transdiagnostic approaches to mental health problems: Current status and future directions.
Dalgleish, T., Black, M., Johnston, D., & Bevan, A. (2020) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037/ccp0000482 · Cited by 883
Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable Measurement Practices and How to Avoid Them
Flake, J. K., & Fried, E. I. (2020) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2515245920952393 · Cited by 969
Self-citationRobinaugh, D. J., Hoekstra, R. H. A., Toner, E. R., & Borsboom, D. (2020) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291719003404 · Cited by 861
Using Network Analysis to Identify Central Symptoms of Adolescent Depression
Mullarkey, M. C., Marchetti, I., & Beevers, C. G. (2018) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1080/15374416.2018.1437735 · Cited by 519
Metadata
- Authors
- Fried, E. I.
- Affiliations
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Fried, Eiko I.
- ORCID
- Fried, Eiko I.
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-01
- Volume
- 208
- Pages
- 191-197
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2537247270
- Cited by
- 649
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 73 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 93 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 12
- FWCI
- 37.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- erratum (2020-01-01)
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
- Keywords
- major depressive disorder, depressive symptoms, depression rating scales, symptom overlap, scale heterogeneity, measurement invariance, replicability, generalizability, Jaccard similarity
- MeSH terms
- Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reproducibility of Results
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