CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 362Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingTreatment of Major Depression

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validación de las versiones en español de la Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale y la Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale para la evaluación de la depresión y de la ansiedad

Lobo, Antonio, Chamorro, Lorenzo, Luque, Antonio, Dal-Ré, Rafael, Badia, Xavier, Baró, Eva·2002·Medicina Clínica
DOI 10.1016/s0025-7753(02)72429-9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Affective and anxiety disorders (AfD & AnD) are the most common psychiatric diseases in the general population. This study's aim was to assess for the first time the psychometric properties of the Spanish translated versions of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS), which are widely used both in medical care and clinical research.Patients and method A cohort, observational, prospective and multicentre study was conducted in clinically stable or unstable patients with AfD and AnD. The scales were administered at baseline and in a second study visit one week or 2 months later (to stable or unstable patients, respectively). The internal consistency, temporary stability, inter-raters reliability, factorial structure, convergent and discriminant validity, and sensitivity to change were all assessed for both scales.Results One hundred and eight AfD patients and 106 AnD patients were recruited in 10 psychiatry care centres from a wide geographical distribution. Both scales showed adequate properties in terms of: a) discriminant validity (MADRS/HARS-Clinical Global Impression: p < 0.001); b) convergent validity (MADRS-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: p < 0.05 and 0.01; MADRS/HARS-EuroQoL 5D: p < 0.05; HARS-State Trait Anxiety Inventory: p < 0.05); c) internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: MADRS = 0.88; HARS = 0.89); d) test-retest and inter-raters reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: MADRS = 0.94 and 0.98, respectively; HARS = 0.92 and 0.92), and, e) sensitivity to change (effect size: MADRS = 2.05; HARS = 1.36).Conclusions Spanish versions of MADRS and HARS scales showed good psychometric properties, similar to those of the original scales. Therefore, these scales are suitable for use in clinical practice and research in Spain.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0025-7753(02)72429-9

Cites

26 of 26 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

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Ayuso, 2000, Depresión, Psiquiatría en Atención Primaria, 5, 6
  2. Badia, 1995, Sobre la adaptación cultural de medidas de calidad de vida relacionada con la salud, Med Clin (Barc), 105, 56
  3. Tormo Díaz, 1998, Ética e investigación epidemiológica: principios, aplicaciones y casos prácticos, Sociedad Española de Epidemiología
  4. Badia, 1999, Cultural adaptation into Spanish of the HARS, Mimeografía
  5. Ramos-Brieva, 1986, Validación de la versión castellana de la escala de Hamilton para la depresión, Actas Luso-Esp Neurol Psiquiatr, 14, 324
  6. Ramos-Brieva, 1994, Nuevos datos sobre la validez y fiabilidad de la versión castellana de la escala de Hamilton para la depresión, An Psiqui, 10, 146
  7. Spielberger, 1976, The measurement of state and trait anxiety: conceptual and methodological issues, Emotions: their Parameters and Measurement, 2, 713
  8. Hamilton, 1969, Diagnosis and rating of anxiety, Br J Psychiat, 3, 76
  9. Bobes, 1999, Dal-Ré R. Validación de las versiones en español de los cuestionarios Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, Social Anxiety and Distress Scale y Sheehan Disability Inventory para la evaluación de la fobia social, Med Clin (Barc), 112, 530

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 362

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Lobo, A., Chamorro, L., Luque, A., Dal-Ré, R., Badia, X., & Baró, E.
Affiliations
  • Hospital Universitario de Guadalajara (ES)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (Spain) (ES)
Corresponding author
Luque, Antonio
ORCID
Badia, Xavier
Venue
Medicina Clínica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2002-01
Volume
118
Issue
13
Pages
493-499
ISSN
0025-7753 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s0025-7753(02)72429-9
OpenAlex
W2053087078
Cited by
362
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 17
FWCI
3.36
Type
journal article
Language
es
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Medicina Clínica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Spanish translation, psychometric validation, depression assessment, anxiety assessment, mood disorders, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change, convergent validity, discriminant validity
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales

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