Revised Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression

Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (RHRSD) is one of the most widely used
scales for measuring and quantifying the severity of depression applicable to
adults. Clinicians perform it in a way to interview a person, and the purpose
is to evaluate the degree of depression in people with primary depression
disease. It additionally incorporates things to help clinicians to affirm a
finding of depression and for assessing the effect of the disease on a client’s
everyday life. There are two RHRSD structures intended to be used for adults.
The first one is Clinician Rating Form which is completed during or after
client’s interview, and the 76-thing Self-Report Problem Inventory is completed
by the patient and it gives the clinician data parallel to that contained in
the clinician’s frame. Both structures contain data of 22 clusters of
depressive symptoms. Average Duration of the implementation of this scale is
5-10 minutes. The verification sample consisted of 202 depressed patients, 76%
inpatients, 24% outpatients, and 69% females. There was indicated moderate
reliability for internal consistency of .79 and .81 for the clinical and

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

original version included 21 clusters, but Hamilton emphasized that the last
four items (daily variations, depersonalization / derealization, paranoid
symptoms and obsessive-compulsive symptoms) should not be included in the total
score because such symptoms are rare or do not reflect the manifestation of
depression (Cusin, Yang, Yeung and Fava, 2009). From these conclusions came to
light a 17-clusters version that became standard in clinical depression trials
but there are also versions of 23 and 26 clusters (Cusin, Yang,Yeung and Fava,
2009).Average Duration the implementation of this scale is 5-10 minutes.
Research has shown how Cronbach alpha coefficient of internal consistency of
scale is ? = .83 and meta-analysis over 70 studies have shown that clusters on
the scale have satisfactory reliability (Bagby et al., 2004; according to
Cusin, Yang, Yeung and Fava, 2009). Test-retest reliability of this scale
proved to be high (r = .81), even when it was run with minimally trained
evaluators from different disciplines. It is a multidimensional scale on which
the identical result of two patients is may have a different clinical
significance. This scale is also useful for monitoring changes depressive
symptoms during treatment (Abrabzdadeh-Bouchez , 2003).

the convergent validity of the (RHRSD) scale, it has been shown to be highly
correlated with scales such as MADRS or IDS-C which were conducted by a
clinician. The newer revision of this scale has been established how the
internal consistency coefficient of Cronbach alpha ranges from .71 to .85 which
can be considered as satisfactory reliability. RHRSD and this research were
also proclaimed (r = .84). The main objections to this scale are: failure to
include all the symptoms of a great depression disorders (especially
neurogenerative symptoms such as excessive sleep or consumption food), the
retention of items which have been shown to measure different constructs (e.g.,
irritability and anxiety), giving unequal weight to different symptoms (e.g.
insomnia can be evaluated to six levels, and tire to only two). To improve
reliability amongst assessors, a structured interview for RHRSD used in
training was developed clinicians and clinical investigations, and its use is
associated with a better coefficient internal consistency.


Beck Depression Inventory- II

Depression Inventory -II (BDI-II) is self-assessment of typical symptoms of
depression and is one of most commonly used instruments (Beck et al., 1961). It
was developed to assess the degree of depression symptoms in adults and
adolescents older than 13 years with the previously diagnosed depressive
disorder. The original version included 21 items from different domains of
symptoms that were used to examine mood disorders, loss of hope, feelings of
rejection, inability to enjoy, feelings of guilt, need for punishment,
self-indulgence, self-sufficiency, suicidal risk, plausibility, irritability,
disorder in relation to other people, indecision, negative self-image, reduced
ability to work, sleep disorders, fatigue, lack of appetite, weight loss,
hypochondria and loss of sexual desire (Filip?i?, 2008).After the publication,
DSM-IV also released the second version of this scale, BDI-II. In this scale,
the four new particles were added, and some old ones have been thrown out so
the new 21-item scale with four options under each item, ranging from not
present (0) to severe (3) better reflects new criteria for a large diagnosis
depressive disorder.

Stee, and Brown (1996) also have reformulated all the items to make it more
clearly, the time frame in which the person responded to the presence of
symptoms increased with one for the last two weeks, including the day of the
test. The time it takes to complete it is about 5 -10 minutes, the application
is simple and customized to the user, and the examiner can read the items and
people with reading or concentration difficulties.Coefficient alpha estimates
of reliability for the BDI-II with outpatients was .92 and was .93 for the
nonclinical sample. The corrected item-total correlation for the outpatient
sample ranged from .39 (loss of interest in sex) to .70 (loss of pleasure), for
the nonclinical college sample the lowest item-total correlation was .27 (loss
of interest in sex) and the highest (.74 (self-dislike). The test-retest
reliability coefficient across the period of a week was quite high at .93. The
inclusion in the manual of item-option characteristic curves for each BDI-II
item is of noted significance. Examination of these curves reveals that, for
the most part, the ordinal position of the item options is appropriately
assigned for 17 of the 21 items. However, the items addressing punishment
feelings, suicidal thought or wishes, agitation, and loss of interest in sex
did not display the anticipated rank order indicating an ordinal increase in
the severity of depression across item options. Additionally, although improved
over the BDI, Item 10 (crying) Option 3 does not clearly express a more severe
level of depression than Option 2 (Santor et al., 1994). Overall, however, the
option choices within each item appear to function as intended across the
severity dimension of depression.

Steer and Garbin (1988) determined by a meta-analysis that the internal
coefficient consistency of the Cronbach alpha BDI scale .86 for persons with
the psychiatric diagnosis and .81 for non-psychiatric sample considered
satisfactory reliability. Cusin, Yang, Yeung, and Fava (2009) have determined
that the Cronbach alpha coefficient of internal consistency of the BDI scale is
? = .92. Because of the effects of memory, it often results in a prolonged
increase in test-retest reliability calculating the same complicates and often
avoids. Kjærgaard et al. (2014) also got comparable results, found that BDI has
a high internal consistency coefficient of Cronbach alpha (? = .89) which
suggests a satisfactory reliability.