The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: has the gold standard become a lead weight?

By R. Bagby, Andrew G. Ryder, D. Schuller, Margarita B. Marshall. American Journal of Psychiatry, 2004

1,172 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Pharmacology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f0adc95f72896407850856d183f73d94d0ffc33c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Björn Schuller
2. Maja Pantic
3. Michel François Valstar
4. R. Cowie
5. Florian Eyben
6. Bihan Jiang
7. Fabien Ringeval
8. Denis Lalanne

In Pharmacology

1. M. Earleywine
2. Nicholas T. Van Dam
3. Maurizio Fava
4. Z. Segal
5. Carolina McBride

In Social Psychology

1. Maja Pantic
2. Björn Schuller
3. Michel François Valstar
4. Fabien Ringeval
5. Denis Lalanne
6. M. Earleywine
7. Nicholas T. Van Dam
8. R. Koestner

Citations in the corpus

• Mindfulness Practice, Rumination and Clinical Outcome in Mindfulness-Based Treatment (2014, background): “The HRSD is widely used in research as an indicator of depressive symptomology due to its high interrater reliability (.78) (Sotsky and Glass 1983), high internal reliability (.46 to .97), and high retest reliability (.81 to .98) Bagby et al. (2004).”
• Autonomous motivation for therapy: A new common factor in brief treatments for depression (2007, positive): “The HRSD has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Bagby, Ryder, Schuller, & Marshall, 2004 ; Nezu, Nezu, McClure, & Zwick, 2002 ).”
• Rating Scales for Depression (2009, methodology): “In this paper, the authors reviewed 70 studies on psychometric properties of the HAM-D, published since 1979, and showed that the majority of HAM-D items have adequate reliability [9].”
• AVEC 2013: the continuous audio/visual emotion and depression recognition challenge (2013, methodology): “2013, the clinician-administered Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [13] is the current gold standard to assess severity [2, 30], whereas the gold-standard for diagnosis is the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) [9].”
• A review of depression and suicide risk assessment using speech analysis (2015, methodology): “, 2012) and weak interrater and retest coefficients at the individual item/question level (Bagby et al., 2004).”
• AVEC 2014: 3D Dimensional Affect and Depression Recognition Challenge (2014, methodology): “In the case of depression, which is the focus of AVEC 2013, the clinician-administered Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [14] is the current gold standard to assess severity [3, 32], whereas the gold-standard for diagnosis is the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) [10].”
• Validation of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale--Revised (CESD-R): pragmatic depression assessment in the general population. (2011, methodology): “A literature search in PSYCH ARTICLES suggests the most popular depression scales are the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck et al., 1961), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977), and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D; Hamilton, 1960).”
• AVEC 2016: Depression, Mood, and Emotion Recognition Workshop and Challenge (2016, methodology): “In the case of depression, the clinician-administered Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression [18] is the current gold standard to assess severity [2, 54], whereas the gold-standard for diagnosis is the Structured Clinical Interview for DSMIV (SCID) [13].”