CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 7Psychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Testing and Assessment

Psychometric considerations of depression symptom rating scales

McClintock, Shawn M, Haley, Charlotte, Bernstein, Ira H·2011·Neuropsychiatry
DOI 10.2217/npy.11.59
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A major difficulty associated with the diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) is that it cannot be unequivocally tied to observable bodily functions in the sense that a condition like hypertension can be described in terms of elevated blood pressure. Thus, MDD exemplifies what is called a ‘latent variable’, ‘inferred variable’ or ‘construct’. Creation of scales to measure MDD symptomatology in adult populations is a popular line of research. The traditional approaches to constructing and evaluating scales are known as classical test theory, but modern test theory – more specifically, item response theory – offers some advantages. One useful feature is the ability to equate a score of X on scale A with a score of Y on scale B. Both classical test theory and item response theory are examined in this review. Perhaps the main point is that scales for depression, whether based upon self reporting or clinician rating, use fairly similar item content so that they are more similar than different. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to review the general considerations involved in constructing depression scales, which applies to the many other latent variables studied in psychiatry, and to compare important factors regarding the utility of scales for research and clinical practice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2217/npy.11.59

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
McClintock, S. M., Haley, C., & Bernstein, I. H.
Affiliations
National University of Singapore (SG)
ORCID
McClintock, Shawn M
Venue
Neuropsychiatry
Publisher
OMICS Publishing Group
Published
2011-12
Volume
1
Issue
6
Pages
611-623
ISSN
1758-2008 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2217/npy.11.59
OpenAlex
W2037027351
Cited by
7
References
62
Citations by year
2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
depression rating scales, major depressive disorder, item response theory, classical test theory, scale development, scale validation, latent variables, self-report measures, psychometric properties

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