Cited by 88Schizophrenia research and treatmentPsychological Testing and AssessmentAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Diagnostic validity of assessment scales for depression in patients with schizophrenia

Kim, Sung-Wan, Kim, Su-Jung, Yoon, Bo-Hyun, Kim, Jae-Min, Shin, Il-Seon, Hwang, Michael Y., Yoon, Jin-Sang·2006·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the diagnostic validity of four commonly used assessment scales for depression in schizophrenia. The study population consisted of 84 inpatients meeting the DSM-IV criteria for schizophrenia. Depression in the study subjects was defined by the DSM-IV criteria for major depressive episode. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) and the Simpson-Angus Rating Scale (SARS) were used to differentiate depression from the negative and extrapyramidal symptom-related depressive phenomena in schizophrenia. The following four depression scales were assessed for their diagnostic validity as measures of depressive disorder in schizophrenia: the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D), and the depression subscale of the PANSS (PANSS-D). Of 84 patients with schizophrenia, 32 were diagnosed as having comorbid depressive disorder. The areas under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves of the CDSS, HAM-D, PANSS-D, and BDI were 0.94, 0.89, 0.90, and 0.81, respectively. The area under the ROC curve of the CDSS was significantly greater than that of the BDI and tended to be more favorable than those for the HAM-D and the PANSS-D. Our study suggests that the CDSS may provide the best assessment for depression in patients with schizophrenia.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2005.10.002

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kim, S.-W., Kim, S.-J., Yoon, B.-H., Kim, J.-M., Shin, I.-S., Hwang, M. Y., & Yoon, J.-S.
Affiliations
  • Chonnam National University (KR)
  • East Orange VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Yoon, Bo-Hyun
  • Yoon, Jin-Sang
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-09
Volume
144
Issue
1
Pages
57-63
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010933272
Cited by
88
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
2.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
schizophrenia, depression, diagnostic validity, Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia, Beck Depression Inventory, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, PANSS, depression rating scales, comorbid depression, negative symptoms, extrapyramidal symptoms, major depressive episode
MeSH terms
Adult, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Assessment, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Schizophrenia, Schizophrenic Psychology, 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