CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 200Treatment of Major DepressionAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The self-reported Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale is a useful evaluative tool in major depressive disorder

Open access
Fantino, Bruno, Moore, Nicholas·2009·BMC Psychiatry
DOI 10.1186/1471-244x-9-26PMC PMC2701427
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of Patient-reported Outcomes (PROs) as secondary endpoints in the development of new antidepressants has grown in recent years. The objective of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the 9-item, patient-administered version of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS-S). METHODS: Data from a multicentre, double-blind, 8-week, randomised controlled trial of 278 outpatients diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorder were used to evaluate the validity, reliability and sensitivity to change of the MADRS-S using psychometric methods. A Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to identify the most appropriate threshold to define perceived remission. RESULTS: No missing values were found at the item level, indicating good acceptability of the scale. The construct validity was satisfactory: all items contributed to a common underlying concept, as expected. The correlation between MADRS-S and physicians' MADRS was moderate (r = 0.54, p < 0.001) indicating that MADRS-S is complementary rather than redundant to the MADRS. Cronbach's alpha was 0.84, and the stability over time of the scale, estimated on a sub-sample of patients whose health status did not change during the first week of the study, was good (intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.78). MADRS-S sensitivity to change was shown. Using a threshold value of 5, the definition of "perceived remission" reached a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 75%. CONCLUSION: Taking account of patient's perceptions of the severity of their own symptoms along with the psychometric properties of the MADRS-S enable its use for evaluative purposes in the development of new antidepressant drugs.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-244x-9-26

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The Montgomery-Åsberg depression scale has demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency in both paper-and-pencil and Internet formats.

    “The MADRSS has demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency in both paper-and-pencil and Internet formats. 29,30”

    From Internet-based treatment for provoked vulvodynia: Factors associated with treatment outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [29]

    The Results > Reliability section reports satisfactory internal consistency for the MADRS-S (Cronbach’s alpha 0.84). The paper does not report internal consistency separately for paper-and-pencil and Internet formats, so it does not support the claim about both formats. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • MADRS-S has satisfactory internal consistency.

    “The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS-S) is a 9-item scale for measuring depressive symptoms and has satisfactory internal consistency (Fantino and Moore, 2009).”

    From Internet-based treatment for vulvodynia (EMBLA) – Study protocol for a randomised controlled study (2021) · cites this paper as Fantino and Moore, 2009

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Fantino, B., & Moore, N.
Affiliations
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Bordeaux (FR)
Corresponding author
  • Fantino, Bruno
  • Moore, Nicholas
ORCID
Moore, Nicholas
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2009-05-27
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
26-26
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1471-244x-9-26
PMC
PMC2701427
OpenAlex
W2044133982
Cited by
200
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
H. Lundbeck A/S
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
  • 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
Keywords
Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, major depressive disorder, patient-reported outcomes, psychometric properties, construct validity, reliability statistics, sensitivity to change, antidepressant drug development
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Ambulatory Care, Antidepressive Agents, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Health Status, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results, Multicenter Studies as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Treatment Outcome, Drug Discovery

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