Conclusions : According to the published literature , the clinimetric properties of HAM-D6 are superior to those of both the HAM-D17 and MADRS .
Background : In a study aim ed at identifying the items carrying information regarding the global severity of depression , the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HAM-D6 ) was derived from the original 17-item version of the scale ( HAM-D17 ) .
Since then , the HAM-D6 has been used in a wide range of clinical studies .
We now provide a systematic review of the clinimetric properties of HAM-D6 in comparison with those of HAM-D17 and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale ( MADRS ) .
Measuring depression over time . . . Or not? Lack of unidimensionality and longitudinal measurement invariance in four common rating scales of depression.
In depression research , symptoms are routinely assessed via rating scales and added to construct sum-scores . These scores are used as a proxy for depression severity in cross-sectional research , and differences in sum-scores over time are taken to reflect changes in an underlying depression construct . To allow for such interpretations , rating scales must ( a ) measure a single construct , and ( b ) measure that construct in the same way across time . These requirements are referred to as unidimensionality and measurement invariance . We investigated these 2 requirements in 2 large prospect i ve studies ( combined n = 3,509 ) in which overall depression levels decrease , examining 4 common depression rating scales ( 1 self-report , 3 clinician-report ) with different time intervals between assessment s ( between 6 weeks and 2 years ) . A consistent pattern of results emerged . For all instruments , neither unidimensionality nor measurement invariance appeared remotely tenable . At least 3 factors were required to describe each scale , and the factor structure changed over time . Typically , the structure became less multifactorial as depression severity decreased ( without however reaching unidimensionality ) . The decrease in the sum-scores was accompanied by an increase in the variances of the sum-scores , and increases in internal consistency . These findings challenge the common interpretation of sum-scores and their changes as reflecting 1 underlying construct . The violations of common measurement requirements are sufficiently severe to suggest alternative interpretations of depression sum-scores as formative instead of reflective measures . We discuss the possible causes of these violations such as response shift bias , restriction of range , and regression to the mean . ( PsycINFO Data base
Conclusions : According to the published literature , the clinimetric properties of HAM-D6 are superior to those of both the HAM-D17 and MADRS .
Background : In a study aim ed at identifying the items carrying information regarding the global severity of depression , the 6-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale ( HAM-D6 ) was derived from the original 17-item version of the scale ( HAM-D17 ) .
Since then , the HAM-D6 has been used in a wide range of clinical studies .
We now provide a systematic review of the clinimetric properties of HAM-D6 in comparison with those of HAM-D17 and the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale ( MADRS ) .