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
. 2016 Nov 15:205:73-80.
doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2016.06.062. Epub 2016 Jul 13.

An item response theory evaluation of the young mania rating scale and the montgomery-asberg depression rating scale in the systematic treatment enhancement program for bipolar disorder (STEP-BD)

James J Prisciandaro  1 , Bryan K Tolliver  2
Affiliations

An item response theory evaluation of the young mania rating scale and the montgomery-asberg depression rating scale in the systematic treatment enhancement program for bipolar disorder (STEP-BD)

James J Prisciandaro et al. J Affect Disord. .

Abstract

Background: The Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS) and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) are among the most widely used outcome measures for clinical trials of medications for Bipolar Disorder (BD). Nonetheless, very few studies have examined the measurement characteristics of the YMRS and MADRS in individuals with BD using modern psychometric methods. The present study evaluated the YMRS and MADRS in the Systematic Treatment Enhancement Program for BD (STEP-BD) study using Item Response Theory (IRT).

Methods: Baseline data from 3716 STEP-BD participants were available for the present analysis. The Graded Response Model (GRM) was fit separately to YMRS and MADRS item responses. Differential item functioning (DIF) was examined by regressing a variety of clinically relevant covariates (e.g., sex, substance dependence) on all test items and on the latent symptom severity dimension, within each scale.

Results: Both scales: 1) contained several items that provided little or no psychometric information, 2) were inefficient, in that the majority of item response categories did not provide incremental psychometric information, 3) poorly measured participants outside of a narrow band of severity, 4) evidenced DIF for nearly all items, suggesting that item responses were, in part, determined by factors other than symptom severity.

Limitations: Limited to outpatients; DIF analysis only sensitive to certain forms of DIF.

Conclusions: The present study provides evidence for significant measurement problems involving the YMRS and MADRS. More work is needed to refine these measures and/or develop suitable alternative measures of BD symptomatology for clinical trials research.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00012558.

Keywords: Item response theory; Montgomery-asberg depression rating scale; STEP-BD; Young mania rating scale.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Category Response Curves for each YMRS item. Curves indicate the probability of individuals at varying levels of manic symptom severity choosing each response option.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Item and test information curves for the YMRS. Curves indicate the amount of psychometric information (i.e., the reciprocal of the standard error of measurement) provided by each item, as well as the overall test, at each level of manic symptom severity.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Category Response Curves for each MADRS item. Curves indicate the probability of individuals at varying levels of depressive symptom severity choosing each response option.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Item and test information curves for the MADRS. Curves indicate the amount of psychometric information (i.e., the reciprocal of the standard error of measurement) provided by each item, as well as the overall test, at each level of depressive symptom severity.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bagby RM, Ryder AG, Schuller DR, Marshall MB. The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: has the gold standard become a lead weight? Am J Psychiatry. 2004;161(12):2163–2177. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2163. - PubMed
    1. Baker F. The Basics of Item Response Theory. University of Maryland; College Park, MD: 2001.
    1. Baldassano CF. Assessment tools for screening and monitoring bipolar disorder. Bipolar Disord. 2005;7(Suppl 1):8–15. doi:10.1111/j.1399-5618.2005.00189.x. - PubMed
    1. Bech P. Rating scales in depression: limitations and pitfalls. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2006;8(2):207–215. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory II. Psychological Corporation; San Antonio, TX: 1996.

Associated data