Clinical and psychometric validation of the psychotic depression assessment scale

Søren Dinesen Østergaard; Christina Horsager Pedersen; Peter Uggerby; Povl Munk-Jørgensen; Anthony J Rothschild; Jens Ivar Larsen; Camilla Gøtzsche; Mia G Søndergaard; Anna Gry Bille; Tom G Bolwig; Jens Knud Larsen; Per Bech

doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.012

Clinical and psychometric validation of the psychotic depression assessment scale

Søren Dinesen Østergaard, Christina Horsager Pedersen, Peter Uggerby, Povl Munk-Jørgensen, Anthony J Rothschild, Jens Ivar Larsen, Camilla Gøtzsche, Mia G Søndergaard, Anna Gry Bille, Tom G Bolwig, Jens Knud Larsen, Per Bech

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift › Tidsskriftartikel › Forskning › peer review

25 Citationer (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have indicated that the 11-item Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), consisting of the 6-item melancholia subscale (HAM-D6) of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and 5 psychosis items from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), is a valid measure for the severity of psychotic depression. The aim of this study was to subject the PDAS, and its depression (HAM-D6) and psychosis (BPRS5) subscales to further validation.

METHODS: Patients diagnosed with psychotic depression at Danish psychiatric hospitals participated in semi-structured interviews. Video recordings of these interviews were assessed by two experienced psychiatrists (global severity rating of psychotic depression, depressive symptoms and psychotic symptoms) and by two young physicians (rating on 27 symptom items, including the 11 PDAS items). The clinical validity and responsiveness of the PDAS and its subscales was investigated by Spearman correlation analysis of the global severity ratings and the PDAS, HAM-D6, and BPRS5 total scores. The unidimensionality of the scales was tested by item response theory analysis (Mokken).

RESULTS: Ratings from 39 participants with unipolar psychotic depression and nine participants with bipolar psychotic depression were included in the analysis. The Spearman correlation analysis indicated that the PDAS, HAM-D6 and BPRS5 were clinically valid (correlation coefficients from 0.78 to 0.85, p<0.001) and responsive (correlation coefficients from 0.72 to 0.86, p<0.001) measures of psychotic depression. According to the Mokken analysis, all three scales were unidimensional.

CONCLUSIONS: The clinical validity, responsiveness and unidimensionality of the PDAS and its subscales were confirmed in an independent sample of patients with psychotic depression.

Originalsprog	Engelsk
Tidsskrift	Journal of Affective Disorders
Vol/bind	173C
Sider (fra-til)	261-268
Antal sider	8
ISSN	0165-0327
DOI	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.012
Status	Udgivet - 2015

Adgang til dokumentet

10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.012

AUB Link

Søg efter materialet i Aalborg Universitetsbiblioteks søgemaskine

Citationsformater

Østergaard, S. D., Pedersen, C. H., Uggerby, P., Munk-Jørgensen, P., Rothschild, A. J., Larsen, J. I., Gøtzsche, C., Søndergaard, M. G., Bille, A. G., Bolwig, T. G., Larsen, J. K., & Bech, P. (2015). Clinical and psychometric validation of the psychotic depression assessment scale. Journal of Affective Disorders, 173C, 261-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.012

@article{b4bb7556d396473cb09b6df510ea2589,

title = "Clinical and psychometric validation of the psychotic depression assessment scale",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: Recent studies have indicated that the 11-item Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), consisting of the 6-item melancholia subscale (HAM-D6) of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and 5 psychosis items from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), is a valid measure for the severity of psychotic depression. The aim of this study was to subject the PDAS, and its depression (HAM-D6) and psychosis (BPRS5) subscales to further validation.METHODS: Patients diagnosed with psychotic depression at Danish psychiatric hospitals participated in semi-structured interviews. Video recordings of these interviews were assessed by two experienced psychiatrists (global severity rating of psychotic depression, depressive symptoms and psychotic symptoms) and by two young physicians (rating on 27 symptom items, including the 11 PDAS items). The clinical validity and responsiveness of the PDAS and its subscales was investigated by Spearman correlation analysis of the global severity ratings and the PDAS, HAM-D6, and BPRS5 total scores. The unidimensionality of the scales was tested by item response theory analysis (Mokken).RESULTS: Ratings from 39 participants with unipolar psychotic depression and nine participants with bipolar psychotic depression were included in the analysis. The Spearman correlation analysis indicated that the PDAS, HAM-D6 and BPRS5 were clinically valid (correlation coefficients from 0.78 to 0.85, p<0.001) and responsive (correlation coefficients from 0.72 to 0.86, p<0.001) measures of psychotic depression. According to the Mokken analysis, all three scales were unidimensional.CONCLUSIONS: The clinical validity, responsiveness and unidimensionality of the PDAS and its subscales were confirmed in an independent sample of patients with psychotic depression.",

author = "{\O}stergaard, {S{\o}ren Dinesen} and Pedersen, {Christina Horsager} and Peter Uggerby and Povl Munk-J{\o}rgensen and Rothschild, {Anthony J} and Larsen, {Jens Ivar} and Camilla G{\o}tzsche and S{\o}ndergaard, {Mia G} and Bille, {Anna Gry} and Bolwig, {Tom G} and Larsen, {Jens Knud} and Per Bech",

note = "Copyright {\textcopyright} 2014. Published by Elsevier B.V.",

year = "2015",

doi = "10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.012",

language = "English",

volume = "173C",

pages = "261--268",

journal = "Journal of Affective Disorders",

issn = "0165-0327",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical and psychometric validation of the psychotic depression assessment scale

AU - Østergaard, Søren Dinesen

AU - Pedersen, Christina Horsager

AU - Uggerby, Peter

AU - Munk-Jørgensen, Povl

AU - Rothschild, Anthony J

AU - Larsen, Jens Ivar

AU - Gøtzsche, Camilla

AU - Søndergaard, Mia G

AU - Bille, Anna Gry

AU - Bolwig, Tom G

AU - Larsen, Jens Knud

AU - Bech, Per

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - BACKGROUND: Recent studies have indicated that the 11-item Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), consisting of the 6-item melancholia subscale (HAM-D6) of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and 5 psychosis items from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), is a valid measure for the severity of psychotic depression. The aim of this study was to subject the PDAS, and its depression (HAM-D6) and psychosis (BPRS5) subscales to further validation.METHODS: Patients diagnosed with psychotic depression at Danish psychiatric hospitals participated in semi-structured interviews. Video recordings of these interviews were assessed by two experienced psychiatrists (global severity rating of psychotic depression, depressive symptoms and psychotic symptoms) and by two young physicians (rating on 27 symptom items, including the 11 PDAS items). The clinical validity and responsiveness of the PDAS and its subscales was investigated by Spearman correlation analysis of the global severity ratings and the PDAS, HAM-D6, and BPRS5 total scores. The unidimensionality of the scales was tested by item response theory analysis (Mokken).RESULTS: Ratings from 39 participants with unipolar psychotic depression and nine participants with bipolar psychotic depression were included in the analysis. The Spearman correlation analysis indicated that the PDAS, HAM-D6 and BPRS5 were clinically valid (correlation coefficients from 0.78 to 0.85, p<0.001) and responsive (correlation coefficients from 0.72 to 0.86, p<0.001) measures of psychotic depression. According to the Mokken analysis, all three scales were unidimensional.CONCLUSIONS: The clinical validity, responsiveness and unidimensionality of the PDAS and its subscales were confirmed in an independent sample of patients with psychotic depression.

AB - BACKGROUND: Recent studies have indicated that the 11-item Psychotic Depression Assessment Scale (PDAS), consisting of the 6-item melancholia subscale (HAM-D6) of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and 5 psychosis items from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), is a valid measure for the severity of psychotic depression. The aim of this study was to subject the PDAS, and its depression (HAM-D6) and psychosis (BPRS5) subscales to further validation.METHODS: Patients diagnosed with psychotic depression at Danish psychiatric hospitals participated in semi-structured interviews. Video recordings of these interviews were assessed by two experienced psychiatrists (global severity rating of psychotic depression, depressive symptoms and psychotic symptoms) and by two young physicians (rating on 27 symptom items, including the 11 PDAS items). The clinical validity and responsiveness of the PDAS and its subscales was investigated by Spearman correlation analysis of the global severity ratings and the PDAS, HAM-D6, and BPRS5 total scores. The unidimensionality of the scales was tested by item response theory analysis (Mokken).RESULTS: Ratings from 39 participants with unipolar psychotic depression and nine participants with bipolar psychotic depression were included in the analysis. The Spearman correlation analysis indicated that the PDAS, HAM-D6 and BPRS5 were clinically valid (correlation coefficients from 0.78 to 0.85, p<0.001) and responsive (correlation coefficients from 0.72 to 0.86, p<0.001) measures of psychotic depression. According to the Mokken analysis, all three scales were unidimensional.CONCLUSIONS: The clinical validity, responsiveness and unidimensionality of the PDAS and its subscales were confirmed in an independent sample of patients with psychotic depression.

U2 - 10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.012

DO - 10.1016/j.jad.2014.11.012

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 25462426

SN - 0165-0327

VL - 173C

SP - 261

EP - 268

JO - Journal of Affective Disorders

JF - Journal of Affective Disorders

ER -

Clinical and psychometric validation of the psychotic depression assessment scale

Abstract

Adgang til dokumentet

AUB Link

Fingeraftryk

Citationsformater