Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Email this article to a Colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Articles & Searches Download to citation manager Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Articles by Rush, A. J. Articles by Kashner, T. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Citation Articles by Rush, A. J. Articles by Kashner, T. M. Depression Needs Assessment Other Health Services Issues

Comparison of Self-Report and Clinician Ratings on Two Inventories of Depressive Symptomatology

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the concordance between the self-report and the clinician-rated versions of the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (IDS-30) and between the two versions of the briefer 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-16). METHODS: Data were gathered for 544 adult outpatients with psychotic (N=106) or nonpsychotic (N=438) major depressive disorder at 14 public sector mental health clinics in the Texas Medication Algorithm Project. Data for the QIDS-16 were extracted from the IDS-30. Baseline scores and scores from the final study visit at or before month 12 were analyzed. The clinician-rated and the self-report versions of each scale were compared in their identification of response to treatment and remission. RESULTS: The average baseline IDS-SR-30 total score was 2.2 points higher (indicating greater severity) than the IDS-C-30 score; the average QIDS-SR-16 total score was only .3 points higher than the QIDS-C-16 score. The IDS-SR-30 and the IDS-C-30, as well as the QIDS-C-16 and QIDS-SR-16, agreed substantially in classifying response and remission for patients, regardless of whether the patients had psychotic features. None of a large number of clinical and demographic features accounted for differences between the QIDS-SR-16 and QIDS-C-16 total scores. CONCLUSIONS: Either the IDS-30 or the QIDS-16 self-report adequately assesses depressive symptom severity among public-sector outpatients with major depressive disorder. The briefer QIDS-16 may be preferred to save time and cost.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. F. Duffy, H. Chung, M. Trivedi, D. S. Rae, D. A. Regier, and D. J. Katzelnick Systematic Use of Patient-Rated Depression Severity Monitoring: Is It Helpful and Feasible in Clinical Psychiatry? Psychiatr Serv, October 1, 2008; 59(10): 1148 - 1154. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Get information about faster international access.

Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2006 American Psychiatric Association. All rights reserved.

Home | Search | Current Issue | Past Issues | Subscribe | All APPI Journals | Help | Contact Us