Cited by 463Reliability and Agreement in MeasurementAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Development and reliability of a structured interview guide for the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (SIGMA).

Open access
Williams, Janet B. W., Kobak, Kenneth A.·2008·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is often used in clinical trials to select patients and to assess treatment efficacy. The scale was originally published without suggested questions for clinicians to use in gathering the information necessary to rate the items. Structured and semi-structured interview guides have been found to improve reliability with other scales. Aims: To describe the development and test-retest reliability of a structured interview guide for the MADRS (SIGMA). Method: A total of 162 test-retest interviews were conducted by 81 rater pairs. Each patient was interviewed twice, once by each rater conducting an independent interview. Results: The intraclass correlation for total score between raters using the SIGMA was r = 0.93, P < 0.0001. All ten items had good to excellent interrater reliability. Conclusions: Use of the SIGMA can result in high reliability of MADRS scores in evaluating patients with depression.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.bp.106.032532

Cites

28 of 28 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 Structured Interview Guide for the MADRS provided structured probes to ensure standardization of administration and comprehensive coverage of the 10 questions.

    “The Structured Interview Guide for the MADRS provided structured probes to ensure standardization of administration and comprehensive coverage of the 10 questions.15”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [6]6. Hedlund JL, Vieweg BW. The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression: a comprehensive review. J Oper Psychiatry 1979; 10: 149-61.
  2. [14]14. Williams JBW. A structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988; 45: 742-7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, J. B. W., & Kobak, K. A.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Williams, Janet B. W.
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2008-01
Volume
192
Issue
1
Pages
52-58
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2069138677
Cited by
463
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The British Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Cambridge
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • 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, sigma, inter-rater reliability, test-retest reliability, rating scale development, clinical interview
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reproducibility of Results, Patient Selection, Remote Consultation

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