The Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. II. Validity

The development design and reliability of the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale have been described elsewhere. We focused on the validity of the Yale-Brown Scale and its sensitivity to change. Convergent and discriminant validity were examined in baseline ratings from three cohorts of patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (N = 81). The total Yale-Brown Scale score was significantly correlated with two of three independent measures of obsessive-compulsive disorder and weakly correlated with measures of depression and of anxiety in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder with minimal secondary depressive symptoms. Results from a previously reported placebo-controlled trial of fluvoxamine in 42 patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder showed that the Yale-Brown Scale was sensitive to drug-induced changes and that reductions in Yale-Brown Scale scores specifically reflected improvement in obsessive-compulsive disorder symptoms. Together, these studies indicate that the 10-item Yale-Brown Scale is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing obsessive-compulsive disorder symptom severity and that it is suitable as an outcome measure in drug trials of obsessive-compulsive disorder.     

Standardized clinical outcome rating scale for depression for use in clinical practice

The integration of research into clinical practice to conduct effectiveness studies faces multiple obstacles. One obstacle is the burden of completing research measures of outcome. A simple, reliable, and valid measure that could be rated at every visit, incorporated into a clinician's progress note, and reflect the DSM-IV definition of a major depressive episode (including partial and full remission from the episode) would enhance the ability to conduct effectiveness research. The goal of the present study was to examine the reliability and validity of such a measure. Three hundred and three psychiatric outpatients who were being treated for a DSM-IV major depressive episode were rated on the Standardized Clinical Outcome Rating for Depression (SCOR-D), 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Global Assessment of Functioning. We examined the correlation between the SCOR-D and the other measures, and conducted an analyses of variance to compare mean values on these measures for each rating point on the SCOR-D. The inter-rater reliability of the SCOR-D dimensional ratings and categorical determination of remission were high. The SCOR-D was highly correlated with the other scales, and there were significant differences on the other measures of depression severity between each adjacent rating level of the SCOR-D. The SCOR-D is a brief standardized outcome measure linked to the DSM-IV approach toward defining remission that can be incorporated into routine clinical practice without adding undue burden to the treating clinician with some evidence of reliability and validity. This measure could make it more feasible to conduct effectiveness studies in clinical practice.     

Cross-Cultural Adaptation,Reliability, and Validity of the Revised Korean Version of Ruminative Response Scale

Objective

Rumination is a negative coping strategy defined as repetitive and passive focusing on negative feelings such as depression. The Ruminative Response Scale (RRS) is a widely-used instrument to measure rumination, but there is continuing argument about the construct validity of the RRS, because of probable overlap between the measurement of depression and that of rumination. The RRS-Revised (RRS-R), which removed 12 items of the RRS, is suggested as a more valid instrument for measuring rumination. Therefore, we translated RRS-R into Korean and explored the reliability, validity and factor structure in patients with major depressive disorders.

Methods

Seventy-nine patients with major depressive disorder took the Korean version of RRS, RRS-R, State Trait Anxiety Inventory, Beck Depression Inventory and Penn State Worry Questionnaire. We performed exploratory factor analysis of RRS-R, and tested construct validity, internal reliability and test-retest reliability.

Results

The internal and test-retest reliability of RRS-R was high. Factor analysis revealed that RRS-R is composed of two factors. ''Brooding'' factor explained 56.6% and ''Reflection'' factor explained 12.5%. RRS-R, especially ''Brooding factor'', was highly correlated with other clinical symptoms such as depression, anxiety and worry.

Conclusion

In this study, we find out the RRS-R is more reliable and valid than the original RRS in Korean patients with depression because the RRS-R is free from the debate about the overlap of item with BDI. We also revealed that ''Brooding'' is highly correlated with depressive symptoms. RRS-R may be a useful instrument to explore the implication of ''Brooding'' in depression.     

Assessing reliability and validity of the Arabic language version of the Post-traumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS) symptom items

Arab immigrant women are vulnerable to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) because of gender, higher probability of being exposed to war-related violence, traditional cultural values, and immigration stressors. A valid and reliable screen is needed to assess PTSD incidence in this population. This study evaluated the reliability and validity of an Arabic language version of the symptom items in Foa et al.'s [Foa, E.B., Cashman, L., Jaycox, L., and Perry, K. 1997. The validation of a self report measure of posttraumatic stress disorder: the Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale. Psychological Assessment 9(4), 445-451]. Post-traumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS) in a sample of Arab immigrant women (n=453). Reliability was supported by Cronbach's alpha values for the Arabic language version (0.93) and its subscales (0.77-0.91). Results of group comparisons supported validity: Women who had lived in a refugee camp or emigrated from Iraq - a country where exposure to war and torture is common - were exhibiting depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) score above 18), or reported moderately to severely impaired functioning had significantly higher mean PDS total and symptom subscale scores than women who had not had these experiences or were not exhibiting depressive symptoms. Scores on the PDS and its subscales were also positively correlated with the Profile of Mood States (POMS) depression and anxiety subscales and negatively correlated with the POMS vigor subscale (r=-.29 to-.39).     

Determining remission from depression on two self-report symptom scales: a comparison of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology and the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale

To answer fundamental questions regarding the effectiveness of treatments for depression in real-world clinical practice, it is necessary to incorporate the measurement of outcome. Self-report questionnaires are a cost-effective option to systematically, reliably, and validly evaluate clinical status because they are inexpensive in terms of professional time needed for administration, and do not require special training for administration. While there are many self-administered depression scales, only a limited number cover all of the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder (MDD) and have had cutoff scores derived corresponding to the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D) definition of remission. In the present study from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services project, we compared 2 scales in their respective ability to identify remission as defined by the HAM-D. We administered the 17-item HAM-D to 274 depressed outpatients in ongoing treatment. The patients completed the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS) and the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS). Based on the cutoffs recommended by the developers of the scales to identify remission, the 2 scales performed similarly overall though the sensitivity was higher for the QIDS than the CUDOS (95.5% vs. 78.7%), whereas specificity was higher for the CUDOS than the QIDS (73.0% vs. 50.0%). On the CUDOS, the cutoff that maximized the sum of sensitivity and specificity was similar to cutoff initially derived for this purpose; however, for the QIDS, the optimal cutoff was higher than the cutoff originally derived for this purpose. In conclusion, the CUDOS and the QIDS were equally highly related to the HAM-D definition of remission. The CUDOS takes less time to complete than the QIDS and, therefore, may be preferable to use in routine clinical practice.     

Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: A preliminary report

A new Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) designed specifically for rating depression in the elderly was tested for reliability and validity and compared with the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRS-D) and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS). In constructing the GDS a 100-item questionnaire was administered to normal and severely depressed subjects. The 30 questions most highly correlated with the total scores were then selected and readministered to new groups of elderly subjects. These subjects were classified as normal, mildly depressed or severely depressed on the basis of Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) for depression. The GDS, HRS-D and SDS were all found to be internally consistent measures, and each of the scales was correlated with the subject's number of RDC symptoms. However, the GDS and the HRS-D were significantly better correlated with RDC symptoms than was the SDS. The authors suggest that the GDS represents a reliable and valid self-rating depression screening scale for elderly populations.     

The Dimensional Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DY-BOCS): an instrument for assessing obsessive-compulsive symptom dimensions

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) encompasses a broad range of symptoms representing multiple domains. This complex phenotype can be summarized using a few consistent and temporally stable symptom dimensions. The objective of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the Dimensional Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (DY-BOCS). This scale measures the presence and severity of obsessive-compulsive (OC) symptoms within six distinct dimensions that combine thematically related obsessions and compulsions. The DY-BOCS includes portions to be used as a self-report instrument and portions to be used by expert raters, including global ratings of OC symptom severity and overall impairment. We assessed 137 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV diagnosis of OCD, aged 6-69 years, from sites in the USA, Canada and Brazil. Estimates of the reliability and validity of both the expert and self-report versions of the DY-BOCS were calculated and stratified according to age (pediatric vs. adult subjects). The internal consistency of each of the six symptom dimensions and the global severity score were excellent. The inter-rater agreement was also excellent for all component scores. Self-report and expert ratings were highly intercorrelated. The global DY-BOCS score was highly correlated with the total Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale score (Pearson r = 0.82, P<0.0001). Severity scores for individual symptom dimensions were largely independent of one another, only modestly correlated with the global ratings, and were also differentially related to ratings of depression, anxiety and tic severity. No major differences were observed when the results were stratified by age. These results indicate that the DY-BOCS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing multiple aspects of OCD symptom severity in natural history, neuroimaging, treatment response and genetic studies when administered by expert clinicians or their highly trained staff.     

The validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the bipolar depression rating scale

Introduction

Unipolar depression and bipolar depression differ in their clinical presentations, and the conventional depression rating scales fail to capture these differences. Recently, a new scale to rate the severity of depression in bipolar disorder was developed, and this study aims to evaluate the validity and reliability of this scale in a Turkish clinical sample.

Methods

A total of 81 patients (30 males, 51 females) diagnosed with bipolar depression according to the DSM-IV-TR criteria at three different sites in Turkey were interviewed with the Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS), the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, the Young Mania Rating Scale, and the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale Depression and Excitement subscales. Internal consistency, interrater reliability and concurrent validity of the BDRS were evaluated.

Results

The Turkish version of the BDRS had an acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.786). Moderate to strong correlations between the BDRS, and the MADRS (r = 0.808), and the PANSS-D (r = 0.426) were observed, and the BDRS correlated weakly to moderately with the PANSS-E (r = 0.297), and the YMRS (r = 0.368). The mixed symptom cluster score of the BDRS significantly correlated with the YMRS (r = 0.755), and the PANSS-E (r = 0.712). Exploratory factor analysis showed a three-factor solution. These factors corresponded to somatic depression, psychological depression, and mixed symptoms.

Conclusions

This study shows that the Turkish version of the BDRS is a valid and reliable instrument to measure depressive symptomatology in bipolar disorder. The scale has good internal validity, strong interrater reliability, and moderate to strong correlations with other depression rating scales.     

Measuring anxiety in depressed patients: A comparison of the Hamilton anxiety rating scale and the DSM-5 Anxious Distress Specifier Interview

DSM-5 included criteria for an anxious distress specifier for major depressive disorder (MDD). In the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project we examined whether a measure of the specifier, the DSM-5 Anxious Distress Specifier Interview (DADSI), was as valid as the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) as a measure of the severity of anxiety in depressed patients. Two hundred three psychiatric patients with MDD were interviewed by trained diagnostic raters who administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) supplemented with questions to rate the DADSI, HAMA, and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD). The patients completed self-report measures of depression, anxiety, and irritability. Sensitivity to change was examined in 30 patients. The DADSI and HAMA were significantly correlated (r = 0.60, p < 0.001). Both the DADSI and HAMA were more highly correlated with measures of anxiety than with measures of the other symptom domains. The HAMD was significantly more highly correlated with the HAMA than with the DADSI. For each anxiety disorder, patients with the disorder scored significantly higher on both the DADSI and HAMA than did patients with no current anxiety disorder. A large effect size of treatment was found for both measures (DADSI: d = 1.48; HAMA: d = 1.37). Both the DADSI and HAMA were valid measures of anxiety severity in depressed patients, though the HAMA was more highly confounded with measures of depression than the DADSI. The DADSI is briefer than the HAMA, and may be more feasible to use in clinical practice.     

The Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale (MES) in clinical trials of therapies in depressive disorders: a 20-year review of its use as outcome measure

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale (MES) by reviewing clinical trials in which it has been used as outcome measure. METHOD: The psychometric analysis included internal validity (total scores being a sufficient statistic), interobserver reliability, and external validity (responsiveness in short-term trials and relapse prevention in long-term trials). RESULTS: The results showed that the MES is a unidimensional scale, indicating that the total score is a sufficient statistic. The interobserver reliability of the MES has been found adequate both in unipolar and bipolar depression. External validity including both relapse, response and recurrence indicated that the MES has a high responsiveness and sensitivity. CONCLUSION: The MES has been found a valid and reliable scale for the measurement of changes in depressive states during short-term as well as long-term treatment.     

Psychometric properties of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale in multiple sclerosis.

The factorial structure of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale has been examined on a large sample of multiple sclerosis (MS) subjects (n = 696), general practice patients (n = 1,308) and healthy workers (n = 342). The aim of this study was to verify if the CES-D is a valid and reliable scale to assess depressive symptomatology in MS. As previously reported in the literature, we found four factors that measure depressed affect, positive affect, somatic complaints or retarded activity and interpersonal relationships. The percent of total variance explained by the four factors was greater than 50% in each group. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were 0.90 in the MS sample and 0.93 in the general practice sample, indicative of high reliability in both samples. From these results, we conclude that the CES-D can be used to screen for depression in epidemiological studies of this psychiatric disorder among MS patients.     

Psychometric properties of the Spanish version of the Diagnostic Interview for Depressive Personality

The aim of this study was to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Spanish-language version of the Diagnostic Interview for Depressive Personality (DIDP). The DIDP was administered to 328 consecutive outpatients and the test–retest and inter-rater reliability were assessed. Factor analysis was used in search of factors capable of explaining the scale and a cutoff point was established. The DIDP scales showed adequate Cronbach's α values and acceptable test–retest and inter-rater reliability coefficients. Convergent and discriminant validity were explored, the latter with respect to avoidant and borderline personality disorders. The results of the factor analysis were consistent with the four-factor structure of the DIDP scales. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed the area under the curve to be 0.848. We found 30 to be a good cutoff point, with a sensitivity of 74.5% and a specificity of 78.5%. The DIDP proved to be a reliable and valid instrument for assessing depressive personality disorder, at least among our outpatients. The psychometric properties of the DIDP support its clinical usefulness in assessing depressive personality.     

Apathy in late-life depression among Taiwanese patients

BACKGROUND: Apathy is defined as lack of motivation and occurs in a variety of neuropsychological disorders. The Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) has been shown to be valid and reliable for assessing apathy in depression but the validity and reliability of the Chinese version has never been examined. The aims of the study were to (1) evaluate the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the AES in late-life depression and (2) evaluate the severity of apathy in late-life depression.METHODS: We translated the AES into Chinese and used a cross-sectional design to evaluate apathy in elderly subjects. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) -IV criteria and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) were applied for diagnosis and assessment. Three groups of subjects were recruited including one group (n = 31) of patients with major depressive disorder with current depression, the second group (n = 30) with major depressed disorder with remission, and the third group (n = 31) of healthy controls. Convergent validity was tested using four apathy-related items from the HDRS (loss of interest, psychomotor retardation, loss of energy, and loss of insight). Multiple forms of reliability (including internal consistency, test-retest, and interrater) and discriminant validity were examined.RESULTS: We demonstrated that the internal consistency (coefficient alpha = 0.90) and test-retest reliability (p < 0.001) were satisfied. Discriminant validity of apathy severity among these three groups was significant. The convergent validity and correlation coefficients based on the four apathy-related items from the HDRS and AES were acceptable.CONCLUSION: Apathy is a distinct syndrome which may be treatable when depression is effective managed. Further application of the Chinese version of the AES to study the association of apathy with other neuropsychological symptoms is necessary.     

The reliability and validity of a screening Questionnaire for 13 DSM-IV Axis I disorders (the Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire) in psychiatric outpatients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and validity of a new multidimensional screening instrument for 13 DSM-IV Axis I disorders. METHOD: The Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire (PDSQ) is a 90-item self-administered questionnaire that screens for 13 DSM-IV disorders in 5 areas (eating, mood, anxiety, substance use, and somatoform disorders). A consecutive series of 500 psychiatric outpatients completed the PDSQ immediately before their intake evaluation. Seventy-four patients completed the scale a second time less than a week after the initial administration, and 51 patients completed a booklet of questionnaires that included established measures of the same symptom domains assessed by the PDSQ. RESULTS: The PDSQ subscales achieved moderate-to-high levels of internal consistency (mean Cronbach's alpha coefficient = 0.82) and test-retest reliability (mean correlation coefficient = 0.84). Subscale scores were significantly associated with blind clinical diagnoses, and individual PDSQ items correlated much more highly with their own subscale than with other subscales. The PDSQ subscales were much more highly correlated with established measures of the same symptom domain (mean correlation coefficient = 0.72) than with measures of other types of psychopathology (mean correlation = 0.17). CONCLUSION: The PDSQ is a reliable and valid measure of multiple DSM-IV disorders that is brief enough to be incorporated into routine clinical outpatient practice without disruption, yet lengthy enough to be a psychometrically sound instrument.     

The Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology (IDS): preliminary findings

The Inventory for Depressive Symptomatology (IDS) is a new measure of depressive signs and symptoms. Both self-report and clinician-rated versions are under development. The IDS-SR (self-report) was completed by 289 patients, 285 of whom were outpatients. Unipolar major depression (n = 174), bipolar disorder (n = 44), euthymic (S/P unipolar or bipolar) depression (n = 33), and other psychiatric disorders (n = 38) were included. The IDS-SR had good internal reliability (coefficient alpha = 0.85), and significantly correlated with both the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) (r = 0.67) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (r = 0.78). The clinician-rated IDS (IDS-C) was administered to 82 outpatients (75 with unipolar or bipolar disorder, 5 with other psychiatric disorders, and 2 euthymic (S/P unipolar) depressions). Coefficient alpha (0.88) suggested strong internal consistency. The IDS-C correlated highly with both the HRSD (r = 0.92) and the BDI (r = 0.61). Discriminant and factor analyses provided evidence for construct validity for both the IDS-C and IDS-SR. Both scales significantly differentiated endogenous from nonendogenous depression defined by Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC). Factor structures for the IDS-SR revealed four factors: mood/cognition, anxiety, selected endogenous symptoms, and hyperphagia-hypersomnia. The IDS appears applicable to both inpatients and outpatients with endogenous, atypical, and nonendogenous major depression, and may have utility with dysthymics.     

Reliability and validity of a nurses' rating scale of depression

In order to test the reliability and the construct validity of a nurses' depression-rating scale (NRS) patients with a depressive syndrome of endogenous or mixed endogenous-psychogenic aetiology were assessed initially, during and after treatment, by NRS, doctors' rating scale (Cronholm & Ottosson) and self-rating (Zung). Global ratings were also made. The inter-rater reliability of the NRS was 0.41–0.90 for the symptoms, 0.90 for the depression-anxiety syndrome, 0.79 for the retardation syndrome and 0.89 for the total depressive syndrome. As indicators of construct validity three criteria were used: treatment criterion (to discriminate between untreated and treated patients), group difference criterion (to discriminate between groups of treated patients), and convergent validity (correlation to other depression scales). Further, the degree of the discriminating ability, the sensitivity of the scale, was examined. The NRS discriminated well between untreated and ECT treated patients and satisfactorily between recovered and much improved patients. The correlations between NRS and doctors' ratings were positive and significant, although not very high. They indicate that nurses' rating and doctors' rating probably measure partly different aspects of the depressive symptomatology. The simultaneous use of both ratings may thus give a more complete estimate of depression. Doctors' rating was superior to nurses' rating in sensitivity and showed somewhat higher reliability. The results do not justify the replacement of doctors' rating by other ratings. Self-rating appeared to be of little value as an additional assessment.     

Self-rated global measure of the frequency, intensity, and burden of side effects

No standard side-effect measure currently available can be easily used in clinical practice for patients receiving treatment for depression. The Frequency, Intensity, and Burden of Side Effects Rating (FIBSER) Scale was developed to document these three domains of side effects in patients treated in the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) project. This article presents data on the reliability and validity of the FIBSER. The STAR*D prospectively enrolled 4,041 outpatients with nonpsychotic major depressive disorder (MDD) who were seeking medical care (as opposed to symptomatic volunteers recruited via advertisements). The patients were treated with citalopram. Clinical assessments, including the FIBSER, were completed at 2, 4, 6, 9, 12, and, if necessary, 14 weeks after enrollment. The FIBSER was shown to be reliable, with high correlations between observations taken a short time apart, and correlations decreasing as time between observations increased. There were also consistent relationships between items over time. The FIBSER has both face and construct validity. Thus, the FIBSER is a reliable and valid self-report measure of side effects in a population receiving treatment for depression. Although it does not measure the impact of specific side effects, it does measure three domains of impact: frequency, intensity, and burden of the side effects. Its brevity makes it a useful tool for routine clinical practice. These advantages are not available in other side-effect measures.     

Differences between minimally depressed patients who do and do not consider themselves to be in remission

OBJECTIVE: We recently derived a cutoff on a self-report scale corresponding to the most commonly used definition of remission in depression treatment studies (i.e., Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [HAM-D] score < or = 7). However, recent research has suggested that use of this cutoff on the HAM-D to define remission is overinclusive. The goal of the present report from the Rhode Island Methods to Improve Diagnostic Assessment and Services (MIDAS) project was to examine how many depressed patients in ongoing treatment who are considered to be in remission by a self-report equivalent of the HAM-D definition of remission nonetheless do not consider themselves to be in remission. METHOD: Five hundred thirty-five psychiatric outpatients treated for a DSM-IV major depressive episode were asked whether they considered themselves to be in remission and completed the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS), a measure of the severity of the DSM-IV symptoms of depression. The study was conducted from August 2003 until July 2004. RESULTS: Nearly one quarter of the patients who met the remission threshold on the CUDOS (55/249) did not consider themselves to be in remission. Among the CUDOS remitters, the total score on the CUDOS was significantly lower (p < .001) in patients who considered themselves to be in remission than in patients who did not indicate that they were in remission. Examination of specific symptoms revealed greater appetite disturbance and hypersomnia in the patients who did not think they were in remission. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that heterogeneity of clinical status exists even among patients who are minimally depressed and considered to be in remission according to contemporary definitions on symptom severity scales.     

Development and validation of the Affective Self Rating Scale for manic, depressive, and mixed affective states

Most rating scales for affective disorders measure either depressive or hypomanic/manic symptoms and there are few scales for hypomania/mania in a self-rating format. We wanted to develop and validate a self-rating scale for comprehensive assessment of depressive, manic/hypomanic and mixed affective states. We developed an 18-item self-rating scale starting with the DSM-IV criteria for depression and mania, with subscales for depression and mania. The scale was evaluated on 61 patients with a diagnosis of affective disorder, predominantly bipolar disorder type I, using Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hypomania Interview Guide-Clinical version (HIGH-C) and Clinical Global Impression scale, modified for bipolar patients (CGI-BP) as reference scales. Internal consistency of the scale measured by Cronbach's alpha was 0.89 for the depression subscale and 0.91 for the mania subscale. Spearman's correlation coefficients (two-tailed) between the depression subscale and MADRS was 0.74 (P<0.01) and between mania subscale and HIGH-C 0.80 (P<0.01). A rotated factor analysis of the scale supported the separation of symptoms in the mania and depression subscale. We established that the self-rating scales sensitivity to identify mixed states, with combined cut-offs on the MADRS and HIGH-C as reference, was 0.90 with a specificity of 0.71. The study shows that the Affective Self Rating Scale is highly correlated with ratings of established interview scales for depression and mania and that it may aid the detection of mixed affective states.     

Development of the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale: concurrent validity, discriminant validity and retest reliability

Scales used in studies of bipolar disorder have generally been standardized with major depressive or hospitalized manic patients. A clinician rated scale based on a semi-structured interview for persons with bipolar disorder, with comprehensive coverage of bipolar symptomatology, is needed. We report concurrent, divergent and convergent psychometric reliability, discriminant validity and relationship to a measure of overall function for a new psychometric rating instrument. A primarily outpatient sample of 224 subjects was assessed using the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale (BISS). The BISS total score and depression and mania subscales were compared to the Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). Clinical mood states were also compared using the BISS. The BISS scores demonstrated good concurrent validity, with estimates (Pearson correlations) ranging from 0.74 to 0.94 for YMRS and MADRS and test-retest reliability from 0.95 to 0.98. BISS concurrent validity with the GAF was significant for four clinical states, but not mixed states. The BISS discriminated primary bipolar mood states as well as subjects recovered for eight weeks compared to healthy controls. In conclusion, the BISS is a reliable and valid instrument broadly applicable in clinical research to assess the comprehensive domains of bipolar disorder. Future directions include factor analysis and sensitivity to change from treatment studies.