Reviewbronze2020

The Hamilton Rating Scales for Depression: A Critical Review of Clinimetric Properties of Different Versions

Danilo Carrozzino · Chiara Patierno · Giovanni Andrea Fava · Jenny Guidi

263 citations0/0 files storedPsychotherapy and Psychosomatics

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Psychological Testing and Assessment

Abstract

The format of the original Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) was unstructured: only general instructions were provided for rating individual items. Over the years, a number of modified versions of the HAM-D have been proposed. They differ not only in the number of items, but also in modalities of administration. Structured versions, including item definitions, anchor points and semi-structured or structured interview questions, were developed. This comprehensive review was conducted to examine the clinimetric properties of the different versions of the HAM-D. The aim was to identify the HAM-D versions that best display the clinimetric properties of reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change. The search was conducted on MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, and yielded a total of 35,473 citations, but only the most representative studies were included. The structured versions of the HAM-D were found to display the highest inter-rater and test-retest reliability. The Clinical Interview for Depression and the 6-item HAM-D showed the highest sensitivity in differentiating active treatment from placebo. The findings indicate that the HAM-D is a valid and sensitive clinimetric index, which should not be discarded in view of obsolete and not clinically relevant psychometric criteria. The HAM-D, however, requires an informed use: unstructured forms should be avoided and the type of HAM-D version that is selected should be specified in the registration of the study protocol and in the methods of the trial.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 263 citations exist upstream.

References

1961An Inventory for Measuring Depression 1960A RATING SCALE FOR DEPRESSION 1982Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report 1979A New Depression Scale Designed to be Sensitive to Change 1965A Self-Rating Depression Scale 1967Development of a Rating Scale for Primary Depressive Illness 1981National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule 1976The Global Assessment Scale

Cited by

2021Clinimetric Criteria for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures 2021The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 vs. the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression in Assessing Major Depressive Disorder 2024Using Large Language Models to Detect Depression From User-Generated Diary Text Data as a Novel Approach in Digital Mental Health Screening: Instrument Validation Study 2021Transdiagnostic versus Diagnosis-Specific Group Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Anxiety Disorders and Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial 2022The concept of psychological distress and its assessment: A clinimetric analysis of the SCL-90-R.

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.