Search

(DID) project is to develop a comprehensive and psychometrically sound rating scale for major depressive disorder (MDD) that reflects current diagnostic criteria and conceptualizations of depression. We report here the evaluation of the current DID item bank using Classical Test Theory (CTT), Item Response Theory (IRT) and Rasch Measurement Theory (RMT). Methods: The present study was part of a larger multisite, open-label study conducted by the Canadian Biomarker Integration Network in Depression (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01655706). Trained raters administered the 32 DID items at each of two visits (MDD: baseline, n=211 and Week 8, n=177; healthy participants: baseline, n=112 and Week 8, n=104). The DID's "grid" structure operationalizes intensity and frequency of each item, with clear symptom definitions and a structured interview guide, with the current iteration assessing symptoms related to anhedonia, cognition, fatigue, general malaise, motivation, anxiety, negative thinking, pain, and appetite. Participants were also administered the Montgomery-- Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (QIDS-SR) that allowed DID items to be evaluated against existing "benchmark" items. CTT was used to assess data quality/reliability (i.e., missing data, skewness, scoring frequency, internal consistency), IRT to assess individual item performance by modelling an item's ability to discriminate levels of depressive severity (as assessed by the MADRS), and RMT to assess how the items perform together as a scale to capture a range of depressive severity (item targeting). These analyses together provided empirical evidence to base decisions on which DID items to remove, modify, or advance. Results: Of the 32 DID items evaluated, eight items were identified by CTT as problematic, displaying low variability in the range of responses, floor eflects, and/or skewness; and four items were identified by IRT to show poor discriminative properties that would limit their clinical utility. Five additional items were deemed to be redundant. The remaining 15 DID items all fit the Rasch model, with person and item difficulty estimates indicating satisfactory item targeting, with lower precision in participants with mild levels of depression. These 15 DID items also showed good internal consistency (alpha=0.95 and inter-item correlations ranging from r=0.49 to r=0.84) and all items were sensitive to change following antidepressant treatment (baseline vs. Week 8). RMT revealed problematic item targeting for the MADRS and QIDSSR, including an absence of MADRS items targeting participants with mild/moderate depression and an absence of QIDS-SR items targeting participants with mild or severe depression. Conclusion: The present study applied CTT, IRT, and RMT to assess the measurement properties of the DID items and identify those that should be advanced, modified, or removed. Of the 32 items evaluated, 15 items showed good measurement properties. These items (along with previously evaluated items) will provide the basis for validation of a penultimate DID scale assessing anhedonia, cognitive slowing, concentration, executive function, recent memory, drive, emotional fatigue, guilt, self-esteem, hopelessness, tension, rumination, irritability, reduced appetite, insomnia, sadness, worry, suicidality, and depressed mood. The strategies adopted by the DID process provide a framework for rating scale development and validation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To present initial validity data on three web-based computerized versions of the Kiddie Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (KSADS-COMP).Method: The sample for evaluating the validity of the clinician-administered KSADS-COMP included 511 youths 6-18 years of age who were participants in the Child Mind Institute Healthy Brain Network. The sample for evaluating the parent and youth self-administered versions of the KSADS-COMP included 158 youths 11-17 years of age recruited from three academic institutions.Results: Average administration time for completing the combined parent and youth clinician-administered KSADS-COMP was less time than previously reported for completing the paper-and-pencil K-SADS with only one informant (91.9 ± 50.1 minutes). Average administration times for the youth and parent self-administered KSADS-COMP were 50.9 ± 28.0 minutes and 63.2 ± 38.3 minutes, respectively, and youths and parents rated their experience using the web-based self-administered KSADS-COMP versions very positively. Diagnoses generated with all three KSADS-COMP versions demonstrated good convergent validity against established clinical rating scales and dimensional diagnostic-specific ratings derived from the KSADS-COMP. When parent and youth self-administered KSADS-COMP data were integrated, good to excellent concordance was also achieved between diagnoses derived using the self-administered and clinician-administered KSADS-COMP versions (area under the curve = 0.89-1.00).Conclusion: The three versions of the KSADS-COMP demonstrate promising psychometric properties, while offering efficiency in administration and scoring. The clinician-administered KSADS-COMP shows utility not only for research, but also for implementation in clinical practice, with self-report preinterview ratings that streamline administration. The self-administered KSADS-COMP versions have numerous potential research and clinical applications, including in large-scale epidemiological studies, in schools, in emergency departments, and in telehealth to address the critical shortage of child and adolescent mental health specialists.Clinical Trial Registration Information: Computerized Screening for Comorbidity in Adolescents With Substance or Psychiatric Disorders; https://clinicaltrials.gov/; NCT01866956. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Depression Inventory Development project is an initiative of the International Society for CNS Drug Development whose goal is to develop a comprehensive and psychometrically sound measurement tool to be utilized as a primary endpoint in clinical trials for major depressive disorder. Using an iterative process between field testing and psychometric analysis and drawing upon expertise of international researchers in depression, the Depression Inventory Development team has established an empirically driven and collaborative protocol for the creation of items to assess symptoms in major depressive disorder. Depression-relevant symptom clusters were identified based on expert clinical and patient input. In addition, as an aid for symptom identification and item construction, the psychometric properties of existing clinical scales (assessing depression and related indications) were evaluated using blinded datasets from pharmaceutical antidepressant drug trials. A series of field tests in patients with major depressive disorder provided the team with data to inform the iterative process of scale development. We report here an overview of the Depression Inventory Development initiative, including results of the third iteration of items assessing symptoms related to anhedonia, cognition, fatigue, general malaise, motivation, anxiety, negative thinking, pain and appetite. The strategies adopted from the Depression Inventory Development program, as an empirically driven and collaborative process for scale development, have provided the foundation to develop and validate measurement tools in other therapeutic areas as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine whether the mode of administration affected the psychometric properties of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD), 21 subjects with an affective disorder were administered two HAMD interviews on the same day, once via videoconference (at 384 kbit/s) and once face-to-face, by two independent interviewers. The interviewers were blind to the results of the other interview. The mean HAMD scores were almost identical (18.4 for videoconferencing and 18.2 for face to face). The intra-class correlation between the two sets of scores was 0.88. When another group of 21 subjects had the HAMD administered in two face-to-face interviews on the same day, the inter-rater reliability was not significantly different from that for the videoconference cohort. Most patients (91%) thought videoconferencing was a useful way to receive a psychological evaluation when other means were unavailable or limited. The study shows the psychometric equivalence of remote and face-to-face HAMD administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objectives of this study are to develop a brief self-rated screening instrument for generalized social anxiety disorder (GSAD) and to test the efficiency of the instrument. The Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN), a 17-item self-administered scale for GSAD, was given to 263 individuals with GSAD and controls. A subset of three items yielding high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of GSAD was identified. This abbreviated version of the SPIN (Mini-SPIN) was administered to a group of managed care patients in conjunction with an epidemiological study of GSAD. Patients (n = 7,165) were sent a questionnaire comprising the Mini-SPIN and a brief depression screener. Respondents screening positive for GSAD on the Mini-SPIN (n = 344) were interviewed using the social phobia module of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) to verify the diagnosis. A random sample of those who screened negative for GSAD on the Mini-SPIN were administered a similar interview to identify two control groups without GSAD for comparison (n = 673). With this information, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for the Mini-SPIN were determined (weighted for sampling). Using a cutoff score of 6 or greater, the Mini-SPIN demonstrated a sensitivity of 88.7%, specificity of 90.0%, positive predictive value of 52.5%, and negative predictive value of 98.5%. The scale possessed 90% accuracy (efficiency) in diagnosing the presence or absence of GSAD in a managed care population. The Mini-SPIN demonstrates good efficiency, supporting its utility as a screening tool for generalized social anxiety disorder. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Computer-administered versions of two clinician-administered symptom rating scales for social anxiety (the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale [LSAS] and the Brief Social Phobia Scale [BSPS]) and one paper-and-pencil scale (the Fear Questionnaire) were developed and utilized in a clinical trial for social phobia. The reliability and validity of the computer versions were examined, as were their equivalence to the traditional versions. Correlations between the computer and original versions were high at baseline, and remained high throughout the study. The internal consistency reliability of the computer scales was also high, and almost identical to the original versions. Mean score differences between computer and original versions were not significant at baseline, and no significant differences were found between computer and traditional versions on the amount of change detected from baseline to endpoint. Seventy-seven percent of subjects felt that the computer did not interfere with their visit at baseline and a plurality (36%) preferred the computer, with 30% preferring the clinician and 34% having no preference. By the end of the study, the plurality (41%) had no preference, with 27% preferring the computer and 32% preferring the clinician. Results support the use of these computer-administered symptom rating scales of social anxiety as a viable alternative to the clinician-administered versions with this subset of patients, which should offer researchers and clinicians a reliable and cost-effective method for evaluating social phobia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]