CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 430Psychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesHealth Education and Validation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validity and Reliability of the Chinese Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

Zheng, Yanping, Zhao, Jingping, Phillips, Michael, Liu, Jianbai, Cai, Minfang, Sun, Shengqi, Huang, Miaofeng·1988·British Journal of Psychiatry
DOI 10.1192/bjp.152.5.660
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (CHDS) was assessed. Interrater reliability was excellent, the item total-score correlations were good, and the internal reliability was satisfactory. The concurrent validity was tested by correlating the CHDS score with the Global Assessment Scale score; the strong negative correlation found indicated that the CHDS reflects the overall level of disability. Five distinct factors were generated by principle-component analysis; these factors account for 52.4% of the total variance. Rigorous evaluation of the numerous translated scales being used in clinical and research settings of non-Western countries is important.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/bjp.152.5.660

Cites

12 of 12 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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Nunnally, 1978, Psychometric Theory
  2. 1980, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
  3. Yan, 1986, Statistical methods for testing reliability, Chinese Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry, 19, 367
  4. Wu, 1986, Use of scales to evaluate neurotic depression, Chinese Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry, 19, 339
  5. Duan, 1985, Investigation of the psychological symptoms of 122 cases of affective disorder, Chinese Journal of Neurology and Psychiatry, 18, 79

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 430

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Zheng, Y., Zhao, J., Phillips, M., Liu, J., Cai, M., Sun, S., & Huang, M.
Affiliations
  • Hunan University of Medicine (CN)
  • Ganzhou People's Hospital (CN)
ORCID
Phillips, Michael
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Publisher
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Published
1988-05
Volume
152
Issue
5
Pages
660-664
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
DOI
10.1192/bjp.152.5.660
OpenAlex
W1973655558
Cited by
423
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 61 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 10838 d)
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, Chinese version, depression assessment, psychometric validation, inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, concurrent validity, Global Assessment Scale, factor structure, cross-cultural adaptation
MeSH terms
Adult, China, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, 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