Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2007 Apr-Jun;41(3-4):239-46.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2006.04.001. Epub 2006 May 22.

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

Ira H Bernstein  1 , A John Rush, Thomas J Carmody, Ada Woo, Madhukar H Trivedi
Affiliations
Comparative Study

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

Ira H Bernstein et al. J Psychiatr Res. 2007 Apr-Jun.

Abstract

Objectives: 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.

Methods: 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).

Results: 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.

Conclusion: 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scree plot of the QIDS-C16 and QIDS-SR16 at baseline and exit with randomly generated scree (parallel analysis)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Test information functions for the QIDS-C16 and QIDS-SR16 at baseline and exit
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Press; 2000. Text Revision.
    1. Azocar F, Areán P, Miranda J, Muñoz RF. Differential item functioning in a Spanish translation of the Beck Depression Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2001;57:365–355. - PubMed
    1. Bech P, Allerup P, Gram LF, Reisby N, Rosenberg R, Jacobsen O, Nagy A. The Hamilton Depression Scale. Evaluation of objectivity using logistic models. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1981;63:290–299. - PubMed
    1. Cialdella P, Guillaud-Bataille JM, Gausset MF, Terra JL, Gerin P, Palliard E, Jouishomme JC. Study of the unidimensionality of the Yesavage-Brinck geriatric depression scale. Comparison between classical methods and Rasch’s model. Encephale. 1992;18:537–544. - PubMed
    1. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item Response Theory for Psychologists. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence E. Erlbaum Associates; 2000.

Publication types