The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Results of the DSM-IV mood disorders field trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The DSM-IV mood disorders field trial, a multisite collaborative study, was designed to explore the reliability of a course-based diagnostic classification system for major depression, evaluate the symptom criteria for dysthymia, and explore the need for additional diagnostic categories for milder forms of mood disorder (e.g., minor and recurrent brief depression). METHOD: Five hundred twenty-four depressed subjects were recruited from inpatient, outpatient, and community settings at five sites and evaluated with structured interviews according to DSM-III and DSM-III-R criteria, with careful attention to longitudinal course. Within- and across-site interrater reliability studies and 6-month test-retest reliability studies were also conducted on subsets of the sample. RESULTS: For evaluations of major depression and dysthymia, intrasite reliability was good to excellent and intersite reliability was fair to good; 6-month test-retest reliability was fair for dysthymia and poor to fair for major depression. Interrater reliability for six course of illness specifiers was fair to good, and almost all subjects could be assigned to a specific type of course. CONCLUSIONS: The results supported the use of a course-based classification system for major depression. They also suggested that the content validity of the DSM-III-R symptom criteria for dysthymia could be improved by emphasizing cognitive and social/motivational symptoms, although such changes are unlikely to sharpen the distinction between dysthymia and major depression. Finally, 91% of the subjects met the criteria for current or lifetime major depression or dysthymia, suggesting that additional categories for milder forms of depression are not needed.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Course of Depression in Adult Outpatients: Results From the Medical Outcomes Study
Wells, K. B. (1992) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1992.01820100032007 · Cited by 475
Relapse after recovery from unipolar depression: a critical review
Belsher, G., & Costello, C. G. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.104.1.84 · Cited by 321
Cited by
Genetic Epidemiology of Major Depression: Review and Meta-Analysis
Sullivan, P. F., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2000) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.157.10.1552 · Cited by 3,431
Hyde, C. L., Nagle, M. W., Tian, C., Chen, X., Paciga, S. A., Wendland, J. R., Tung, J. Y., Hinds, D. A., Perlis, R. H., & Winslow, A. R. (2016) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.3623 · Cited by 784
Subthreshold Depression in Adolescence and Mental Health Outcomes in Adulthood
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., Ridder, E. M., & Beautrais, A. L. (2005) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archpsyc.62.1.66 · Cited by 792
Toward DSM—V and the classification of psychopathology.
Widiger, T. A., & Clark, L. A. (2000) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.946 · Cited by 540
Interpersonal Processes in Depression
Hames, J. L., Hagan, C. R., & Joiner, T. E. (2013) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185553 · Cited by 499
Metadata
- Venue
- American Journal of Psychiatry
- Published
- 1995-06-01
- Volume
- 152
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 843-849
- ISSN
- 0002-953X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-7228
- OpenAlex
- W1685111874
- Cited by
- 249
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 7.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Results of the DSM-IV mood disorders field trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1176/ajp.152.6.843
- The paper
- Results of the DSM-IV mood disorders field trial. (1995). American Journal of Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1176/ajp.152.6.843
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.