Cited by 295Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major DepressionPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The GRID-HAMD: standardization of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

Williams, Janet B.W., Kobak, Kenneth A., Bech, Per, Engelhardt, Nina, Evans, Ken, Lipsitz, Joshua, Olin, Jason, Pearson, Jay +1 more·2008·International Clinical Psychopharmacology

Abstract

This report describes the GRID-Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (GRID-HAMD), an improved version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale that was developed through a broad-based international consensus process. The GRID-HAMD separates the frequency of the symptom from its intensity for most items, refines several problematic anchors, and integrates both a structured interview guide and consensus-derived conventions for all items. Usability was established in a small three-site sample of convenience, evaluating 29 outpatients, with most evaluators finding the scale easy to use. Test-retest (4-week) and interrater reliability were established in 34 adult outpatients with major depressive disorder, as part of an ongoing clinical trial. In a separate study, interrater reliability was found to be superior to the Guy version of the HAMD, and as good as the Structured Interview Guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (SIGH-D), across 30 interview pairs. Finally, using the SIGH-D as the criterion standard, the GRID-HAMD demonstrated high concurrent validity. Overall, these data suggest that the GRID-HAMD is an improvement over the original Guy version as well as the SIGH-D in its incorporation of innovative features and preservation of high reliability and validity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/yic.0b013e3282f948f5

Cites

26 of 26 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
Williams, J. B. W., Kobak, K. A., Bech, P., Engelhardt, N., Evans, K., Lipsitz, J., Olin, J., Pearson, J., & Kalali, A.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Williams, Janet B.W.
Venue
International Clinical Psychopharmacology
Published
2008-05
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
120-129
ISSN
0268-1315 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2030962294
Cited by
295
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
10.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Clinical Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, major depressive disorder, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, consensus building, outpatients
MeSH terms
Adult, Consensus Statements as Topic, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, International Cooperation, Interview, Psychological, Pilot Projects, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Reproducibility of Results, Observer Variation, 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