CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 206Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major DepressionPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Getting What You Ask For: On the Selectivity of Depression Rating Scales

Demyttenaere, Koen, De Fruyt, Jürgen·2003·Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
DOI 10.1159/000068690
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A large number of rating scales has been developed to assess depression severity and change during antidepressant therapy. When reviewing the literature, the choice of the rating scales used in a particular study often seems arbitrary. The most frequently used observer rating scales, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) and the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), and the most frequently used self-rating scale (the Beck Depression Inventory, or BDI) were developed more than 20 years ago. Their historical background is too often forgotten and they are reflections of their origin: the HDRS and the MADRS reflect antidepressant activity while the BDI reflects psychotherapy. Moreover, the HDRS is at risk of putting 'all depressions in one basket', while the MADRS is at risk of putting 'all antidepressants in one basket'. Therefore, the question whether a particular antidepressant could be more effective in a particular subtype of depression cannot be answered. Observer rating scales are more frequently used than self-rating scales, and when scales are used that do exist in an observer rating and a self-rating version, interesting differences are found. The present paper does not suggest that one scale is better than another, but suggests that a better knowledge of their differential background can help the researcher choose the correct scale for his purposes.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000068690

Cites

66 of 66 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 10.1037//1040-3590.5.3.350 · DOI
  2. 10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1063 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 206

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Demyttenaere, K., & De Fruyt, J.
Affiliations
Universitair Ziekenhuis Leuven (BE)
ORCID
Demyttenaere, Koen
Venue
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2003
Volume
72
Issue
2
Pages
61-70
ISSN
  • 0033-3190 (ISSN-L)
  • 1423-0348
DOI
10.1159/000068690
OpenAlex
W2056648954
Cited by
206
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 11
FWCI
11.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Treatment of Major Depression
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
depression rating scales, Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, Beck Depression Inventory, observer rating scale, self-rating scale, antidepressant efficacy, depression subtypes, depression severity assessment
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Clinical Trials as Topic, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Psychological Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Bias

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