Clinical vs. self-report versions of the quick inventory of depressive symptomatology in a public sector sample

Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, Texas, United States
Journal of Psychiatric Research (Impact Factor: 3.96). 04/2007; 41(3-4):239-46. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.04.001
Source: PubMed


Recent work using classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) has found that the self-report (QIDS-SR(16)) and clinician-rated (QIDS-C(16)) versions of the 16-item quick inventory of depressive symptomatology were generally comparable in outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (MDD). This report extends this comparison to a less well-educated, more treatment-resistant sample that included more ethnic/racial minorities using IRT and selected classical test analyses.
The QIDS-SR(16) and QIDS-C(16) were obtained in a sample of 441 outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD seen in the public sector in the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP). The Samejima graded response IRT model was used to compare the QIDS-SR(16) and QIDS-C(16).
The nine symptom domains in the QIDS-SR(16) and QIDS-C(16) related well to overall depression. The slopes of the item response functions, a, which index the strength of relationship between overall depression and each symptom, were extremely similar with the two measures. Likewise, the CTT and IRT indices of symptom frequency (item means and locations of the item response functions, b(i) were also similar with these two measures. For example, sad mood and difficulty with concentration/decision making were highly related to the overall depression severity with both the QIDS-C(16) and QIDS-SR(16). Likewise, sleeping difficulties were commonly reported, even though they were not as strongly related to overall magnitude of depression.
In this less educated, socially disadvantaged sample, differences between the QIDS-C(16) and QIDS-SR(16) were minor. The QIDS-SR(16) is a satisfactory substitute for the more time-consuming QIDS-C(16) in a broad range of adult, nonpsychotic, depressed outpatients.

Download full-text


Available from: Augustus John Rush, Aug 11, 2014
  • Source
    • "The unidimensionality of the questionnaire for each sample was examined using parallel analysis where random data sets that contained the same number of items and participants as in the actual data sets were simulated to conduct an exploratory factor analysis. In order to confirm a unidimensionality, the first factor estimated from the observed data should be larger than that of the simulated data, and the subsequent factors estimated from the observed data should not be larger than those of the simulated data (Bernstein et al. 2007). The questionnaire was reexamined for Cheese B and C data. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study explored the possibility of generating a novel sensory evaluation instrument for describing comprehensive food palatability via its subdomains (rewarding, cultural, and informational) while keeping physiological factors constant. Seventy-five Japanese participants were asked to taste cheese samples and to respond to a questionnaire that was developed to dissect the distinct subdomains of palatability. The subsequent factor analyses revealed that three major factors may serve as distinct subdomains of palatability: rewarding, cultural, and informational, although the informational factor was not sufficiently robust. Multivariate regression analysis on cheese samples with exactly the same ingredients but sold in different packages led to different comprehensive palatability ratings due to the contribution of the cultural, but not the rewarding, factor. These results suggest that palatability is not merely determined by the physical and chemical properties that are intrinsic to a food product itself, but also depends on psychological properties that can arise through interaction between humans and the food product. The current study presents the first experimental demonstration that palatability could be dissociated to its subdomains.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2013 · Food Science & Nutrition
  • Source
    • "Eigen values were extracted for each random dataset, and actual observation. Only those factors with eigen values greater than the average eigen values obtained from random datasets were deemed to be meaningful [57]. Subsequently, exploratory factor analysis with number of factors determined by parallel analyses was performed to examine the factor loadings. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Health numeracy is an important factor in how well people make decisions based on medical risk information. However, in many countries, including Japan, numeracy studies have been limited. Methods To fill this gap, we evaluated health numeracy levels in a sample of Japanese adults by translating two well-known scales that objectively measure basic understanding of math and probability: the 3-item numeracy scale developed by Schwartz and colleagues (the Schwartz scale) and its expanded version, the 11-item numeracy scale developed by Lipkus and colleagues (the Lipkus scale). Results Participants’ performances (n = 300) on the scales were much higher than in original studies conducted in the United States (80% average item-wise correct response rate for Schwartz-J, and 87% for Lipkus-J). This high performance resulted in a ceiling effect on the distributions of both scores, which made it difficult to apply parametric statistical analysis, and limited the interpretation of statistical results. Nevertheless, the data provided some evidence for the reliability and validity of these scales: The reliability of the Japanese versions (Schwartz-J and Lipkus-J) was comparable to the original in terms of their internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.53 for Schwartz-J and 0.72 for Lipkus-J). Convergent validity was suggested by positive correlations with an existing Japanese health literacy measure (the Test for Ability to Interpret Medical Information developed by Takahashi and colleagues) that contains some items relevant to numeracy. Furthermore, as shown in the previous studies, health numeracy was still associated with framing bias with individuals whose Lipkus-J performance was below the median being significantly influenced by how probability was framed when they rated surgical risks. A significant association was also found using Schwartz-J, which consisted of only three items. Conclusions Despite relatively high levels of health numeracy according to these scales, numeracy measures are still important determinants underlying susceptibility to framing bias. This suggests that it is important in Japan to identify individuals with low numeracy skills so that risk information can be presented in a way that enables them to correctly understand it. Further investigation is required on effective numeracy measures for such an intervention in Japan.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2012 · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
  • Source
    • "The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) and Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are widely used clinician-rated scales. The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS); its shortened version, the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomology (QIDS) [17]; and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) are among commonly used patient-reported measures for depression symptoms [18-21]. Many of these instruments were developed without patient input and were derived directly from clinician rating scales, only changing the perspective from clinician to patient. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although many symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) are assessed through patient-report, there are currently no patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments that incorporate documented evidence of patient input in PRO instrument development. A review of existing PROs used in MDD suggested the need to conduct qualitative research with patients with MDD to better understand their experience of MDD and develop an evaluative instrument with content validity. The aim of this study was to develop a disease-specific questionnaire to assess symptoms important and relevant to adult MDD patients. The questionnaire development involved qualitative interviews for concept elicitation, instrument development, and cognitive interviews to support content validity. For concept elicitation, ten MDD severity-specific focus group interviews with thirty-eight patients having clinician-confirmed diagnoses of MDD were conducted in January 2009. A semi-structured discussion guide was used to elicit patients' spontaneous descriptions of MDD symptoms. Verbatim transcripts of focus groups were coded and analyzed to develop a conceptual framework to describe MDD. A PRO instrument was developed by operationalizing concepts elicited in the conceptual framework. Cognitive interviews were carried out in patients (n = 20) to refine and test the content validity of the instrument in terms of item relevance and comprehension, instructions, recall period, and response categories. Concept elicitation focus groups identified thirty-five unique concepts falling into several domains: i) emotional, ii) cognitive, iii) motivation, iv) work, v) sleep, vi) appetite, vii) social, viii) activities of daily living, ix) tired/fatigue, x) body pain, and xi) suicidality. Concept saturation, the point at which no new relevant information emerges in later interviews, was achieved for each of the concepts. Based on the qualitative findings, the PRO instrument developed had 15 daily and 20 weekly items. The cognitive interviews confirmed that the instructions, item content, and response scales were understood by the patients. Rigorous qualitative research resulted in the development of a PRO measure for MDD with supported content validity. The MDD PRO can assist in understanding and assessing MDD symptoms from patients' perspectives as well as evaluating treatment benefit of new targeted therapies.
    Full-text · Article · Apr 2012 · BMC Psychiatry
Show more