CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 303Psychometric Methodologies and TestingReliability and Agreement in MeasurementAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: A meta-analysis over a period of 49years

Trajković, Goran, Starčević, Vladan, Latas, Milan, Leštarević, Miomir, Ille, Tanja, Bukumirić, Zoran, Marinković, Jelena·2011·Psychiatry Research
DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.12.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The aim of this study was to provide a comprehensive meta-analytic review of the reliability of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) for the period 1960-2008, taking into consideration all three types of reliability: internal consistency, inter-rater, and test-retest reliability. This is the first such meta-analytic study of a clinician-administered psychiatric scale. A thorough literature search was conducted using MEDLINE and PsycINFO. The total number of collected articles was 5548, of which 409 reported one or more reliability coefficients. The effect size was obtained by the z-transformation of reliability coefficients. The meta-analysis was performed separately for internal consistency, inter-rater and test-retest reliability. A pooled mean for alpha coefficient in random effects model was 0.789 (95%CI 0.766-0.810). The meta-regression analysis revealed that higher alpha coefficients were associated with higher variability of the HRSD total scores. With regard to inter-rater reliability, pooled means in random effects model were 0.937 (95%CI 0.914-0.954) for the intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.81 (95%CI 0.72-0.88) for the kappa coefficient, 0.94 (95%CI 0.90-0.97) for the Pearson correlation coefficient, and 0.91 (95%CI 0.78-0.96) for the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. A meta-regression analysis showed positive association between inter-rater reliability and publication year. Test-retest reliability of HRSD ranged between 0.65 and 0.98 and generally decreased with extending the interval between two measurements (Spearman r between the duration of interval and test-retest reliability figures=-0.74). Results suggest that HRSD provides a reliable assessment of depression. Figures indicate good overall levels of internal consistency, inter-rater and test-retest reliability, but some HRSD items (e.g., "loss of insight") do not appear to possess a satisfactory reliability.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.12.007

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Hedlund, 1979, The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: A comprehensive review, Journal of Operational Psychiatry, 10, 149

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 303

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Trajković, G., Starčević, V., Latas, M., Leštarević, M., Ille, T., Bukumirić, Z., & Marinković, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Belgrade (RS)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Priština - Kosovska Mitrovica (XK)
Corresponding author
Trajković, Goran
ORCID
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-08
Volume
189
Issue
1
Pages
1-9
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.psychres.2010.12.007
OpenAlex
W1995485235
Cited by
303
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, depression assessment, reliability statistics, internal consistency, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, intraclass correlation coefficient, kappa statistic, Pearson correlation, Spearman correlation, loss of insight
MeSH terms
Depression, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Regression Analysis, Reproducibility of Results, Databases, Factual

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