Talk:Beck Depression Inventory

message: Hi, could whoever has changed this article please change it back? The title of the article is BDI, not BDI-II. Whilst it's true that the BDI-II is the most recent copy, a lot of us still use the BDI-I for various reasons. I suggest the BDI-II is incorporated as a new heading or a new article.
--PaulWicks 16:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article changed to refer to BDI-II 

message: The original 1961 paper states 'In order that the instrument reflect the current status of the patient, the items were presented in such a way as to elicit the patient's attitude at the time of the interview' (top right p562), so where did the 1 week time period come in? - it seems to be on my copy of the BDI 155.198.63.112 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BDI and 1 week period 

message: Please leave the finely tuned google links in place. Here's why: Any single link you include will not survive as owners of the Beck test are shutting down web sites. It's best to use the google search and let people find whatever happens to be available at the moment. Thanks for your cooperation!!! Cshay 23:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Search Link 

message: Do people think there may be too many references quoted? We should include them if they make important statements about the properties of the BDI but not if they just use the scale. According to Wikipedia:Guide to layout references should be quoted if they were used in constructing the article. 155.198.63.112 11:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References  

message: These two paragraphs were recently anonymously added:
On the other hand, depressed individuals with main symptoms of negative cognitions may get unusually high scores on the BDI. This is because it is weighed toward cognitive symptoms. The first two-thirds scores cognitive symptoms and the remaining third scores somatic symptoms.
The BDI is an established and validated tool, but one must avoid over-reliance on a single assessment instrument, especially if results are found to be unexpectedly high or low. It may be useful to bear in mind how the BDI was initially validated: by comparison with clinicians' impressions of depressed patients, who then completed the questionnaire. 
This sounds a bit like conjecture and I don't see why it matters that the test is weighted in this way. Are there more firm citations or what not to back this up? The second paragraph is a bit vague and confusing as well and I am leaning towards deleting it also. The person who added this may well have a good point, but I'd like to see some citations, studies or at the very least a clearer explanation. Any interested parties' opinions or edits to clean this up would be much appreciated Cshay 04:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my eyes this first statement is meaningless. If you're depressed, any high score can not, by definition, be unusual. The second paragraph is also not that helpful; no clinician would rely upon the BDI for diagnosis, it is merely a tool used for e.g. tracking response to drugs, or research. I can see where the editor is coming from, and perhaps these are statements they've read in a textbook or heard in a lecture, but I don't think they're all that relevant here. Happy with deletion. --PaulWicks 07:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Additions to the Limitations Section 

message: Do you think we should mention contrasts with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale as both these scales are used in research. I've heard that these scales actually have quite a low correlation which is worrying as they are meant to both measure the same thing. --193.204.167.87 09:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contrasts with Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 

message: I recently finished a research broject using the BDI-II, so I've read so much info about the test that I figure I need to use it for something, so I'm adding it here. Everything will be well-sourced, so I can back up all of this stuff with my giant stach of EbscoHost docs. I also added mention of the short-lived BDI-1A (1993) and I may go into that a little more. I've only been editing Wikipedia for a couple of months now, so let me know if I screw anything up. Dlmccaslin 04:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding some info

message: Cshay, I wanted the BDI-IA section as a subsection of the BDI, as it is a revision of the first version and not a full re-write like -II. Can I change it back?Dlmccaslin 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BDI-IA

message: This seems weird. The BDI-II wasn't published until 1996, and I find it difficult to believe that this reference preceded publication by 5 years. Unfortunately, I can't find a copy of the study online. I'm going to move it to the BDI-IA subsection, because that seems more logical. If I'm wrong, go ahead and change it back.Dlmccaslin 04:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: BDI-II Alpha (Ambrosini et al. 1991)

message: These are the unused references that I removed from the article. If anyone wants to add them back in, please reference them in the text.
* Beck A.T. (1988). "Beck Hopelessness Scale." The Psychological Corporation.   
* Beck A.T., Ward C., Mendelson M. (1961). "Beck Depression Inventory (BDI)". Arch Gen Psychiatry 4: 561-571.
Maybe we should put the above one back in, as this is actually citing the original inventory and is usually the one that is cited in research papers 194.83.142.171 13:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can cite what it says, go ahead. I don't have a copy of this manual, so I can't reference anything with it. If you can,. feel free. Dlmccaslin 22:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unused references

message: I moved the recently added historical/motivation/development information to it's own section. I think this section could benefit from the addition of more information about the development of the BDI when time allows.  Cshay 10:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good. But should we move that section to right before we talk about the first test, so that we read about the development before we read about the test? Dlmccaslin 15:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's certainly a possibility. I was sort of thinking that the main thrust of the article was the test itself, with the history and motivation of the test sort of an interesting side bar. Another way to say it is: the history/motivation/development section could eventually grow to be quite long since there must be plenty of history. Do we really want to put off giving the details of the test itself until after all of the history has been provided?  Someone reading the article to learn about the test itself might be frusterated by all the history coming first before getting to the "meat".  One way we could avoid this scenario, yet move this section to where you want it is to beef up the first section to include more details about the test thus passing this info on before the history section... Just my thoughts however, feel free to edit as you please... Cshay 06:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think you're right.Dlmccaslin 14:54, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recently added background information

message: I'm going to go ahead and declare this a Good article. I found it clear and compelling, and I think the concerns on this talk page have been essentially addressed. I edited this article a few times just now, cleaning up some small issues.
As a future direction, one thing I hope to see is more discussion of the theoretical merits of Beck's work. Some of the language of "psychodynamics" seems a little dated to me. Has a more modern understanding of depression changed psychiatrists' opinion of the BDI? Twinxor t 09:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Promotion 

message: The article says, "The cognitive subscale contains eight items," but listed only seven items.  I added the eighth item.  Using this source I suppose I did this correctly.  Can someone with a more primary source check my work?
--US 30 17:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Items in the cognitive subscale 

message: The article says, "In this respect, the BDI-II is positively correlated with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale with a Pearson r of 0.71, showing good agreement. The test was also shown to have a high one-week test-retest reliability (Pearson r =0.93), suggesting that it was not overly sensitive to daily variations in mood." Is it only the second sentence that refers to reference 8 (the BDI=II manual) or is it also the correlation against the Hamilton Depression scale as this is not made very clear. Many thanks (Fliss 17:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding references 

message: I removed the following from the article (added by this anonymous edit):
:[This section is wrong.  A Meta-Analysis of 33 published factor analyses of the BDI has demonstrated that the BDI has at least a 3-factor structure, and probably better a 4-factor structure: negativity toward the self, dysphoric mood, performance impairment, and somatic symptoms. (Schafer A, J Clin Psychol, Jan 2006)]
And added a  instead.  Wonder what reference this is, maybe this? /skagedaltalk 21:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factor structure 

message: This section was lifted almost word for word from a about.com article. I have reverted it.  If you wish to include it, please paraphrase. It was a bit wordy anyway and could benefit from being condensed. http://depression.about.com/od/diagnostictools/fl/Mild-Moderate-or-Severe-Depression.htm Cshay (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation of Scores section 

message: An IP added some interesting content here, but it needs to be rewritten in a form that is accessible to non-technical readers and that uses proper footnoting. I am not an expert on the subject so I am having difficulty editing it. In addition, there appears to be disputed content here. If no one touches it for a few months I will take a stab at it. Cshay (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Might have forgotten this. It is a good article and being unsourced I will probably remove it unless you can fix it up. AIRcorn (talk) 01:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Actually seeing as you haven't edited for a while I will remove it for now. If you return you can add it back in. AIRcorn (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two-factor approach to depression section