A comparison of alternative assessments of depressive symptom severity: A pilot study

Melanie M. Biggs, Kathy Shores-Wilson, A. John Rush, Thomas J. Carmody, Madhukar H. Trivedi, M. Lynn Crismon, Marcia G. Toprac, Mark Mason

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

32 Scopus citations


This study compared the performance of an itemized symptom self-report (Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Self-Report; IDS-SR), patient global ratings, and clinician global ratings with an itemized clinician-rated symptom severity measure (Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology - Clinician-Rated; IDS-C) in detecting treatment effects in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). A total of 28 inpatients (30.8% psychotic) and 34 outpatients (17.9% psychotic) with MDD began treatment that followed the Texas medication algorithm. The clinicians completed the IDS-C and a Physician Global Rating Scale (PhGRS) at each assessment visit, while the patients completed the IDS-SR and a Patient Global Rating Scale (PtGRS). Change scores from the baseline to subsequent weeks were computed for all subjects, utilizing all four measures. The IDS-SR was a significant independent predictor of the response to treatment as compared to the two global ratings. The IDS-SR was as sensitive to change as the IDS-C. While the clinician-rated itemized symptom severity rating scale remains the standard to assess the symptomatic outcome of the treatment of MDD, a self-report of identical symptomatology may be a reasonable alternative for many patients. (C) Published by Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)269-279
Number of pages11
JournalPsychiatry research
Issue number3
StatePublished - Nov 20 2000


  • Global measures
  • Major depressive disorder
  • Self-reports
  • Symptom severity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Biological Psychiatry


Dive into the research topics of 'A comparison of alternative assessments of depressive symptom severity: A pilot study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this