1. Beck Depression Inventory Ii Manual
2. Beck Depression Inventory Ii Download
3. Beck Depression Inventory Manual
4. Beck Depression Inventory Ii Printable
5. Beck Depression Inventory Manual Pdf
6. Beck Depression Inventory Ii Free
7. Beck Depression Inventory Ii Manual Pdf
8. Beck Depression Inventory Ii Pdf

Measures of depression and depressive symptoms: Beck Depression Inventory‐II (BDI‐II), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9)^†

(1982).The use of the Beck Depression Inventory with adolescents. University of Oregon. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 10(2), 277-84. Beck AT, Steer RA and Brown GK (1996) 'Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II'. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Beck Depression Inventory 2nd Edition (BDI-II) is a popular measure intended to assess the existence and severity of symptoms of depression in consistent with in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition (DSM-IV). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Google Scholar. N., Furlow, C. Evaluation of an approximate method for synthesizing covariance matrices for use in meta-analytic SEM.

The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.

INTRODUCTION

This article presents a summary of self‐report adult measures that are considered to be most relevant for the assessment of depression in the context of rheumatology clinical and/or research practice. This piece represents an update of the special issue article that appeared in Arthritis Care & Research in 2003; the current review followed similar selection criteria for inclusion of assessment tools. Specifically, measures were selected based on several considerations, including ease of administration, interpretation, and adoption by arthritis health professionals from varying backgrounds and training perspectives; self‐report measures providing data from the patient or research participant's perspective; availability of adequate psychometric literature and data involving rheumatology populations; and frequent use in both clinical and research practice with adult rheumatology populations. This study was not intended to be exhaustive. Clinician‐administered, semistructured depression interviews requiring specialized training such as the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression and Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition were not included. Additionally, measures without sufficient use within rheumatology populations, such as the World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview depression module and the National Institutes of Health Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, were also not included in this review.

Self‐report measures that have been included in this review are as follows: Beck Depression Inventory‐II, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Geriatric Depression Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and Patient Health Questionnaire‐9. Some of these measures have become integrated into routine clinical practice (as screening tools) in large managed‐care organizations, and these specifics have been included in this article. Included within each measure review are “additional references” that, while not cited within the review itself, may be of interest to the arthritis health professional who intends to use this instrument in their clinical practice or as part of a research study.

As a general comment regarding any assessment of depression, while care was taken to include measures that require little training to administer and interpret, users without psychological background/experience in the management of clinical issues related to depression and crisis situations may need contingency plans for clinical supervision and/or referral sources. Any individual meeting or close to meeting the diagnostic criteria for depressive disorders needs appropriate management and/or referral, including being provided with referral options for different treatment approaches (pharmacologic and/or psychological). Additionally, suicide risk associated with depression must be taken seriously and promptly addressed. Clinicians should have existing plans to immediately deal with anyone who is an imminent danger to self or others (including mandated reporting). Researchers and clinicians ought to identify behavioral health experts (e.g., psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers) who can assist with appropriately handling these types of crisis situations should they be identified in the context of rheumatology clinical or research environments.

BECK DEPRESSION INVENTORY‐II (BDI‐II)

Description

Purpose.

To measure depression symptoms and severity in persons ages ≥13 years.

Versions.

Versions include BDI‐I (1), BDI‐IA (2), BDI‐II (3), and BDI for Primary Care (BDI‐PC), now known as BDI FastScreen for Medical Patients (BDI‐FS) (4).

The Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) has gone through multiple revisions. The original BDI instrument was developed in 1961 (BDI) (1). Revision began in 1971 to improve wording of items, with the final revised instrument published in 1979 (BDI‐IA) (2). A technical manual for the BDI‐IA was published in 1987 and revised in 1993 (5). The BDI‐IA, which is commonly referred to in the literature as simply “BDI,” is similar to the original, except the timeframe extends “over the past week, including today,” and some items were reworded to avoid double negative statements. The BDI‐II, published in 1996, contains a substantial revision of the original and revised BDI‐IA, and omits items relating to weight loss, body image, hypochondria, and working difficulty so that the assessment of symptoms corresponds to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM‐IV) criteria (3). The BDI‐II timeframe extends for 2 weeks to correspond with the DSM‐IV criteria for major depressive disorder.

The BDI‐FS (formerly known as the BDI‐PC) contains 7 cognitive and affective items from the BDI‐II to assess depression in individuals with biomedical or substance abuse problems (4). The BDI‐FS excludes some of the somatic items from the BDI‐II. The timeframe on the BDI‐FS is the same as the BDI‐II.

Populations.

The BDI‐IA was developed and validated using psychiatric and normal populations. Beck and Steer (5) studied outpatient samples that included persons with severe psychiatric diagnoses, depressive disorders, and substance abuse problems, and college students. The BDI‐II was validated using college students, adult psychiatric outpatients, and adolescent psychiatric outpatients (3).

The BDI‐FS was validated using general medical inpatients referred for psychiatric consultation and outpatients seen by family practice, pediatrics, and internal medicine (4).

Developer.

Aaron T. Beck, PhD, Center for Cognitive Therapy, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Content.

The BDI‐II was developed to correspond to DSM‐IV criteria for diagnosing depressive disorders and includes items measuring cognitive, affective, somatic, and vegetative symptoms of depression (3).

Number of items.

There are 21 items in the BDI‐IA and BDI‐II, and 7 items in the BDI‐FS.

Recall period for items.

Last 2 weeks.

Endorsements.

The BDI‐II is 1 of 3 instruments (BDI‐II, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire‐9) endorsed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for use in primary care in measuring baseline depression severity and responsiveness to treatment.

Examples of use.

The original BDI and subsequent versions have been widely accepted and used in psychology and psychiatry for assessing the intensity of depression in psychiatric and normal populations. Studies have been conducted in a variety of settings using medical populations (e.g., Parkinson's disease, human immunodeficiency virus, oncology, cardiac patients, primary care, chronic pain), persons with disabilities, (e.g., arthritis, spinal cord injury, amputation), medically ill persons of diversity, veterans, students, older adults, adolescents, and many populations with psychiatric diagnoses (e.g., eating disorders, addictions, anxiety disorders).

Practical Application

How to obtain.

Contact Pearson Assessments (Pearson Assessments, 19500 Bulverde Road, San Antonio, TX 78259‐3701, online at www.pearsonassessments.com) to purchase the BDI‐II and BDI‐FS manuals and instrument; the BDI is no longer sold to the public. Computer software is available from Pearson Assessments for onscreen administration, or for the input of data from a desktop scanner. The computer program may be used to administer a single questionnaire or to integrate the results of sequential administrations.

Method of administration.

Paper and pencil self‐report in group or individual format; self or oral administration.

Responses.

Scale.

A 4‐point scale indicates degree of severity; items are rated from 0 (not at all) to 3 (extreme form of each symptom).

Score range.

BDI‐II: 0–63, BDI‐FS: 0–21, BDI‐IA: 0–63.

Scoring.

Sum the severity ratings of each depression item. Use the highest response when an item has >1 severity rating.

Special instructions: BDI‐II.

For diagnostic purposes, item 16 (sleep pattern changes) and item 18 (appetite changes) contain 7‐point ratings to note increases or decreases in behavior.

Special instructions: BDI‐IA.

If the examinee is consciously trying to lose weight, then item 19 is not added to total score.

Score interpretation.

No arbitrary cutoff score for all purposes to classify different degrees of depression.

The following guidelines have been suggested to interpret the BDI‐II (3): minimal range = 0–13, mild depression = 14–19, moderate depression = 20–28, and severe depression = 29–63. In post–myocardial infarction (heart attack) patients, the recommended cutoff value for the BDI‐II was ≥16, with a sensitivity of 88.2% and a specificity of 92.1% (6). Other cutoffs have been recommended for specific medical populations (i.e., insomnia).

The following guidelines have been suggested to interpret the BDI‐FS (4): minimal = 0–3, mild depression = 4–8, moderate depression = 9–12, and severe depression = 13–21.

The following guidelines have been suggested to interpret the revised BDI (BDI‐IA) (5): minimal range = 0–9, mild depression = 10–16, moderate depression = 17–29, and severe depression = 30–63.

Respondent burden.

Time to administer/complete.

Self‐administration is 5–10 minutes; oral administration is 15 minutes.

Administrative burden.

Training to administer.

Minimal training is required for paraprofessionals or professionals to administer. A clinician needs to interpret the BDI‐II score by paying particular attention to items endorsing self‐harm or feelings of helplessness, such as suicide ideation (item 9) and hopelessness (item 2).

Equipment needed.

Pencil or pen to indicate response.

Training to score.

Minimal training; 5–10 minutes.

Translations/adaptations.

The BDI‐II has been translated into several languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Icelandic, Italian, Japanese, Persian, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish, and Xhosa.

Psychometric Information

Method of development.

The original BDI was based on clinical observations and patient description; the BDI‐II contains items that reflect the cognitive, affective, somatic, and vegetative symptoms of depression (1, 2). The BDI‐II, a revised version of the BDI‐IA, was developed to correspond to DSM‐IV criteria for diagnosing depressive disorders (3).

Acceptability.

Reading levels vary widely in the literature, ranging from being written at the fifth‐ to sixth‐grade reading level (7, 8) to “13 years for the reading level of questions and response options” (9).

Reliability.

Internal consistency.

Beck and Steer (5) report that Cronbach's α for the revised BDI normative–psychiatric samples range from 0.79–0.90. These coefficients are consistent with estimates of coefficient α reported in a psychiatric sample (0.81) (10). The BDI‐II has a higher internal consistency than the BDI‐IA: Cronbach's α was reported as 0.92 for outpatients and 0.93 for college students. Coefficient α for BDI‐FS ranged from 0.85–0.89.

Test–retest.

In their review of BDI‐IA studies, Beck et al (10) reported correlations between pre‐ and posttests for varying time intervals that range from 0.48–0.86 for psychiatric patients and from 0.60–0.90 for nonpsychiatric patients. For college students, test–retest correlations ranged from 0.64–0.90; BDI‐II test–retest (administered 1 week apart) correlation was 0.93.

Validity.

Content.

According to the manual (5), BDI‐IA items reflect 6 of 9 DSM‐II criteria well. The BDI‐II revision improved content validity by rewording and adding items to assess DSM‐IV criteria for depression.

Construct.

As theorized, the BDI‐IA and BDI‐II are positively correlated with hopelessness construct in normative samples. In a factor analysis of the BDI‐IA responses of patients and nonpatients, Beck and colleagues (10) found that 3 factors (cognitive–affective, performance, and somatic) were consistently identified across diagnostic groups. Factor analysis of the BDI‐II yielded 2 factors (somatic–affective and cognitive factors), a result supported in research with medical outpatients (3, 11).

Criterion.

In psychiatric outpatient clinic samples, the BDI‐II and Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression were positively correlated (0.71) (3).

Sensitivity/responsiveness to change.

BDI‐II has been found to be sensitive to change in depression in cross‐cultural studies: a 5‐point difference corresponded to a minimally important clinical difference, 10–19 points to a moderate difference, and ≥20 points to a large difference (12).

Critical Appraisal of Overall Value to the Rheumatology Community

Strengths.

Time efficient, simplicity in administration and scoring, psychometric properties, predictive ability, many translations available, used with many different populations, and assessment of symptoms and timeframe of measurement correspond to the DSM‐IV criteria.

Caveats and cautions.

Concerns about overlapping symptoms between medical conditions and depression, although somatic symptoms have been shown to be an important assessment inclusion for depression in elderly medical patients (13); cost; and reading level. The manual suggests cautious use for diagnosis based on scores alone. Recommend health professionals interpret BDI‐II scores and provide indicated referrals/interventions.

Clinical usability.

High. Has demonstrated utility in identifying depression in medical populations, including rheumatology.

Research usability.

High. Strong psychometric properties support use.

Additional references.

Arnau RC, Meagher MW, Norris MP, Bramson R. Psychometric evaluation of the Beck Depression Inventory‐II with primary care medical patients. Health Psychol 2001;20:112–9.

Beck AT, Guth D, Steer RA, Ball R. Screening for major depression disorders in medical inpatients with the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care. Behav Res Ther 1997;35:785–91.

Beck AT, Steer RA, Ball R, Ranieri WF. Comparison of the Beck Depression Inventories‐1A and ‐II in psychiatric outpatients. J Pers Assess 1996;67:588–97.

Furukawa TA. Assessment of mood: guides for clinicians. J Psychosomatic Res 2010;68:581–9.

Steer RA, Cavalieri TA, Leonard DM, Beck AT. Use of the Beck Depression Inventory for Primary Care to screen for major depression disorders. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1999;21:106–11.

CENTER FOR EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES DEPRESSION SCALE (CES‐D)

Description

Purpose.

To measure the current level of depressive symptoms in a general population.

Versions.

The original 20‐item version has been shortened to a 10‐item version for older adults (14) and to a 5‐item version (15). A 9‐item version was developed for screening rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients (16). Multiple other shortened versions ranging from 4–16 items have been developed and used with various populations, although shorter versions tend to increasingly classify patients with multiple chronic health conditions (including RA) as depressed (17). There is also a modified version available for children (CES‐D for Children) (18).

Populations.

Epidemiology studies using a general population.

Developer/contact information.

Lenore Sawyer Radloff, National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, Maryland.

Content.

Items assess perceived mood and level of functioning during the past week. Four factors are represented: depressed affect, positive affect, somatic problems and retarded activity, and interpersonal relationship problems, with an emphasis on depressed affect. CES‐D items do not assess the diagnostic criteria of appetite, anhedonia, psychomotor agitation or retardation, guilt, or suicidality.

Subscales.

None.

Endorsements.

None.

Examples of use.

Widely used and validated in many populations, including RA, fibromyalgia, and other medical cohorts (stroke, multiple sclerosis, oncology, spinal cord injury, diabetes mellitus); adolescents; women; diverse populations; primary care; elderly; and clinical and psychiatric populations.

Practical Application

How to obtain.

The CES‐D is available in original article by Radloff (19) and is available online at www.chcr.brown.edu/pcoc/cesdscale.pdf. There is no cost to use the CES‐D; it is available in the public domain.

Method of administration.

Easily self‐administered or administered by interviewer. Can be administered in‐person, by written or interview format, by telephone interview, or by mail.

Responses.

Scale.

4‐point scale, where 0 = rarely or none of the time (<1 day), 1 = some or a little of the time (1–2 days), 2 = occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3–4 days), and 3 = most or all of the time (5–7 days).

Score range.

The range is 0–60 for the original 20‐item version. Bourne conspiracy cheats.

Scoring.

Easily hand scored. Items are summed to obtain a total score using the 0 (rarely or none of the time) to 3 (most or all of the time) scores for individual items. Four items (4, 8, 12, 16) are worded in a positive direction to reduce a tendency toward response bias; these items are reverse coded.

Score interpretation.

A higher score reflects greater symptoms of depression, weighted by frequency of occurrence in the past week. CES‐D score ≥16 is typically employed as a cutoff for clinical depression and usually warrants a referral for a more thorough diagnostic evaluation.

While maximizing sensitivity, the cutoff score of ≥16 results in a high percentage of false‐positives; therefore, Haringsma et al (20) note an optimal cutoff score for clinically relevant depression as 22 (with sensitivity 84%, specificity 60%, and positive predicted value 77%) with community‐dwelling older adults. Turk and Okifuji (21) recommend a cutoff score of 19 for detecting depressive disorder in patients with chronic pain. Blalock et al (22) identified 4 arthritis‐related items and suggested a modified scoring approach. Martens et al found little difference between CES‐D cutoff scores of 16 and 19 in RA patients, but noted a score of 16 yielded stronger sensitivity and negative predictive value and a score of 19 yielded stronger specificity and positive predictive value; therefore, the authors recommend the cutoff score of 19 as being optimal in most cases (23). Callahan et al (24) and McQuillan et al (25) discussed additional scoring issues in rheumatic disease.

Respondent burden.

Time to administer/complete: ∼10 minutes.

Administrative burden.

Equipment needed.

When self‐administered, a pencil or pen to complete.

Time to score.

Less than 10 minutes. Can be scored during administration.

Training to score.

Minimal training time to score; ≤10 minutes.

Translations/adaptations.

Translated into Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Korean, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Turkish, and Vietnamese.

Psychometric Information

Method of development.

The CES‐D was developed for research purposes and is used as a screening tool to identify persons at risk for clinical depression.

Acceptability.

Written at the third‐grade reading level (9). Microsoft Word 2007 Flesch‐Kincaid analysis completed by the authors reveals a reading grade level of 3.3. Due to length, missing data in the 20‐item CES‐D have been reported as common in studies of elders.

Reliability.

Internal consistency.

High internal consistency. Coefficient α range from 0.85 in the general population to 0.90 in a psychiatric population.

Test–retest.

The CES‐D measures “current” level of symptoms and is expected to vary over time. In the original sample, test–retest correlations were in the moderate range, falling between 0.45 and 0.70, as expected if the scale is sensitive to current depressive state; stronger test–retest correlations were identified with shorter administration time intervals.

Validity.

Content.

Items were selected from the longer previously used and validated scales considered to be representative of clinical symptoms of depression.

Criterion.

The CES‐D is widely studied in the literature and deemed an accepted measure of depression. It adequately correlates with other valid self‐report depression scales to provide concurrent validity. In the original sample, CES‐D correlations with depression measures (e.g., Lubin, Bradburn Negative Affect) ranged from 0.51–0.61; moderate correlation (0.49) was found between CES‐D and clinical interview ratings of depression. CES‐D scores were moderately correlated with self‐esteem (0.58) and state anxiety (0.44) and highly correlated (0.71) with trait anxiety (26).

Sensitivity/responsiveness to change.

Sensitive to change since the test–retest changes have been found before and after treatment, as well as before and after a stressful life event. Authors have been unable to locate any clear cutoff scores for measurement of statistically significant change; however, ranges of 13–21 have been provided for detecting 80–90% reliable change (27).

Critical Appraisal of Overall Value to the Rheumatology Community

Strengths.

Validated and used with many different populations, many translations available, various length formats available with differing scoring systems, and cost (free to use). Researchers have used shorter versions with various populations to examine alternate CES‐D cutoffs and a simplified scoring system (yes/no) (28).

Caveats and cautions.

High false‐positive rate for clinical depression with a standard cutoff score of 16. Response format in original 20‐item instrument can be difficult for some participants to follow and is a contributing reason for the development of shorter versions; clinicians should be aware of this possibility for difficulty when selecting the original instrument over the shorter versions.

Clinical usability.

Moderate to high. A CES‐D cutoff score of 16 seems appropriate in most populations, especially when the goal is to identify individuals at high risk for major depressive disorder, accepting some false‐positives. Slightly lowering the CES‐D cutoff may be necessary to identify persons with dysthymic disorder or minor depressive disorder. The CES‐D is not intended as a diagnostic tool (29), to discriminate among depression subtypes (major depressive disorder versus dysthymic disorder; bipolar versus unipolar), or to distinguish between a primary or secondary depression (30).

Research usability.

Moderate to high. The CES‐D has been extensively used and studied, and is considered a reliable valid instrument and a widely recognized research tool. The CES‐D can be used to measure change in affective state and is an excellent choice to measure depression symptoms in research studies. The CES‐D can be used in diverse settings and has been validated in numerous populations, allowing comparisons across studies.

The high correlation between CES‐D measures and trait anxiety indicates that CES‐D measures depression as well as anxiety, a conceptually related construct. Based on the validity studies, the CES‐D may not be specific for depression, but may be a measure of general distress. Additionally, the instrument does not specifically address suicidal ideation. Therefore, its utility for research studies is dependent on the specific aspects of depression the researcher seeks to measure and his or her need to exclude other possible constructs in this measurement.

Additional references.

DeForge BR, Sobal J. Self‐report depression scales in the elderly: the relationship between the CES‐D and the Zung. Int J Psychiatry Med 1988;18:325–8.

Escalante A, del Rincon I, Mulrow CD. Symptoms of depression and psychological distress among Hispanics with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 2000;13: 156–67.

Foley KL, Reed PS, Mutran EJ, DeVellis RF. Measurement adequacy of the CES‐D among a sample of older African Americans. Psychiatry Res 2002;109:61–9.

Gerety MB, Williams JW Jr, Mulrow CD, Cornell JE, Kadri AA, Rosenberg J, et al. Performance of case‐finding tools for depression in the nursing home: influence of clinical and functional characteristics and selection of optimal threshold scores. J Am Geriatr Soc 1994;42:1103–9.

Roberts RE. Reliability of the CES‐D Scale in different ethnic contexts. Psychiatry Res 1980;2:125–43.

GERIATRIC DEPRESSION SCALE (GDS)

Description

Purpose.

Developed as a self‐rating screening tool to measure depressive symptoms in older adults. Designed to identify depression in the elderly by distinguishing symptoms of depression and dementia.

Versions.

The original or “long version” contains 30 items (31, 32). A short version (15 items) was developed to decrease fatigue or lack of focus seen in the elderly (33).

Beck Depression Inventory Ii Manual

Populations.

Normal community‐dwelling elderly and elders hospitalized for depression.

Developer.

Jerome Yesavage, MD, Director, Stanford University/VA/NIA Aging Clinical Research Center, Palo Alto, California.

Content.

Items represent characteristics of depression in the elderly in the affective (e.g., sadness, apathy, crying) and cognitive domains (e.g., thoughts of hopelessness, helplessness, guilt, worthlessness). The GDS contains no somatic concerns common in the elderly (i.e., disturbances in energy level, appetite, sleep, sexual interest).

Number of items.

30 items in the original or long form and 15 items in the short form.

Recall period for items.

Current for long form; past week for short form.

Examples of use.

Stiles and McGarrahan (34) reported that the GDS has been used successfully in community samples, psychiatric and medical patients, nursing home residents (cognitively impaired and intact), geriatric samples, and young adults. The GDS in both formats (original and short) has been widely used with elderly medical patients (i.e., primary care, stroke, rheumatology, Parkinson's disease, and cancer) and persons of diversity (i.e., Asians, African Americans, Mexican Americans).

Practical Application

How to obtain.

Available from the original article by Yesavage and colleagues (32); English long and short versions, scoring instructions, and versions in many languages are available online at www.Stanford.edu/∼yesavage/GDS.html. There is no cost; the GDS is in the public domain.

Method of administration.

Designed as paper and pencil, self‐administered questionnaire. Oral assistance and/or interview can be utilized; however, it has been suggested that the same format be used for repeated administrations for patients or within subject groups because different administration formats can produce variable results. Oral administration may be advisable in some situations, particularly for individuals who have cognitive impairments.

Responses.

Score range.

The range is 0 (no depression) to 30 (severe depression) for long form, and 0 (no depression) to 15 (severe depression) for short form.

Scoring.

Original/long form.

Total score calculated by summing responses that endorse depression. Negatively endorsing items 1, 5, 7, 9, 15, 19, 21, 27, and 29 indicates depression, while positively endorsing the remaining 20 items indicates depression.

Short form.

Consistent with the long form, the total score is calculated by summing responses that endorse depression. Negatively endorsing items 1, 5, 7, 11, and 13 indicates depression, while positively endorsing the remaining 10 items indicates depression.

Missing data.

According to the above noted web site, prorating scores is permitted. An example provided on the developer's web site is as follows: “If say 3 of 15 items missed, total score is score on 12 completed PLUS 3/15ths of total score to make‐up for omitted items, e.g. if they got a 4 on the 12 they completed or 1/3 positive, add 1/3 of the 3 missing or 1 point for a total of 5.”

Score interpretation.

Long form.

Higher GDS scores are indicative of more severe depression. Brink et al (31) suggested GDS scores 1–10 be considered normal, while GDS scores ≥11 are indicative of possible depression; using a cutoff score of 14 avoids false‐positives. The developer's web site provides the following interpretive guidelines: 0–9 = normal, 10–19 = mild depression, and 20–30 = severe depression.

Short form.

The developer's web site reports scores >5 are suggestive of depression and those >10 indicate highly likely depression. Studies involving medical patients propose cutoffs ranging from 5–7 (35-39).

Respondent burden.

Time to administer/complete: 5–10 minutes for the original/long version and 2–5 minutes for the short version.

Administrative burden.

Equipment needed.

Pencil or pen to record responses.

Training to score.

Minimal; 5 minutes.

Norms available.

None.

Translations/adaptations.

The GDS has been translated into Arabic, Chinese, Creole, Danish, Dutch, Farsi, French, French Canadian, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Icelandic, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Lithuanian, Malay, Maltese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Vietnamese, and Yiddish, and are available for download via the developer's web site (www.Stanford.edu/∼yesavage/GDS.html).

Psychometric Information

Method of development.

Items are based on characteristics of depression in the elderly. Brink and colleagues (31) selected 100 items that distinguished between elderly depressed and nondepressed individuals; 30 items were selected for the GDS using an empirical selection procedure. For the short form, the 15 questions that had the highest correlations with original validation studies were chosen from the pool of 30 (33).

Acceptability.

The GDS short form is written at a fourth‐grade reading level (9). Microsoft Word 2007 Flesch‐Kincaid analysis completed by the authors reveals a reading grade level of 4.8 for the short form and 4.9 for the original long form.

Reliability.

Internal consistency.

High: Cronbach's α was 0.94 and split‐half reliability was 0.94 (32). Recent review of internal consistencies measured by multiple studies using both oral and written administrations with various populations reported Cronbach's α ranging from 0.69–0.99 (40) for the long form; short form internal consistency has been reported at 0.74–0.86 (39, 41).

Test–retest reliability.

Correlations (r = 0.84–0.85) at 1–2 weeks retest suggested the GDS scores (both short and long forms) reflect stable individual differences.

Validity.

Content.

Final test items for both forms selected via empirical item selection from items based on characteristics of depression in the elderly.

Criterion.

High correlations have been noted between the GDS and other depressive symptom measures. The GDS more consistently differentiates depressed from nondepressed seniors than other depression measures (34). The GDS short form is highly correlated with the original long form (33).

Construct.

Yesavage and colleagues (32) validated the original 30‐item version using 2 depressive symptoms measures, the Zung Self‐Rating Scale for Depression (SDS) and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD), to compare their ability to classify normal subjects from mild and severe depression. The measures yielded similar results, with normal subjects scoring lower than persons endorsing mild depressive symptoms and those endorsing severe depressive symptoms, and persons with severe symptoms having the highest scores. When compared to a diagnostic classification variable, the GDS and HRSD yielded similar results, while the SDS appeared to discriminate less effectively. Correlation between the GDS and SDS was 0.84; correlation between the GDS and HRSD was 0.83.

Other studies have used depression measures (i.e., Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale) to examine the GDS convergent validity. Stiles and McGarrahan (34) reported that most studies report correlations ranging from 0.58–0.89. Studies involving young subjects reported lower correlations (range 0.66–0.67).

Divergent.

The correlations between the GDS and cognitive screening tests, Mini‐Mental State Examination and modified Blessed Test, were low since they intended to measure different constructs.

Sensitivity/responsiveness to change.

Sensitivity of the GDS to change was compared to the SDS and HRSD; normal subjects were expected to receive the lowest GDS scores, and persons reporting with severe depressive symptoms to receive the highest scores. When SDS, HRSD, and GDS scores were compared, the 3 severity levels seen in the GDS were also seen in criterion measures.

The GDS short form has been shown to differentiate between depressed and nondepressed elderly primary care patients with a sensitivity of 0.814 and a specificity of 0.754 at a cutoff score of 6 (39), with a recent meta‐analysis of primary care patients providing similar data (original/long form GDS sensitivity = 77.4%, specificity = 65.4%; short form GDS sensitivity = 81.3%, specificity = 78.4%) (41).

The GDS has been shown to be sensitive to change reflecting change in the depression of patients with rheumatoid arthritis following depression treatment, with GDS score changes of 6–11 points needed for 80–90% reliable change (29).

Critical Appraisal of Overall Value to the Rheumatology Community

Strengths.

Time efficient; simplicity in administration and scoring, robust psychometric properties of both the long and short forms, many translations available, and extensively studied with the elderly population. The GDS has a simple format that accurately and efficiently assesses depressive symptoms in the elderly, from those ages 65 years to those ages ≥85 years.

Caveats and cautions.

The GDS appears valid in younger samples, yet may not be the best choice of assessment with a younger sample. A gap remains regarding the validity of the GDS in persons ages ≥85 years. The GDS may also assess “general distress” rather than only depressive symptoms: several items are indicative of both cognitive and somatic symptoms of anxiety. Simple administration and robust psychometric properties have led to the GDS being translated into many languages and cultures, yet studies conducted in other countries/cultures suggest that depressive symptoms are expressed differently in other parts of the world, suggesting cautious use.

GDS long and short forms were highly correlated (0.84) with and sensitive to depressive symptoms in mild to moderate dementia. Debate in the literature concluded that the GDS was effective and reliable in individuals with mild dementia. Stiles and McGarrahan (34) recommend caution when using the GDS with cognitively impaired individuals, and also recommend not using the scale with severely cognitively impaired patients or individuals with compromised insight and accuracy of self‐report.

There is no consensus or “gold standard” as to which form to use: Stiles and McGarrahan (34) recommend using long form versus short form since it is more reliable and valid; however, Mitchell et al (42) recommend the short form versus long form given minimal added detection in the longer form over the short, but a 3–4‐minute addition of time to appointment length.

Clinical usability.

High. Has demonstrated utility in identifying depression in elderly medical patients.

Research usability.

High. Strong psychometric properties support use.

Additional references.

Alden D, Austin C, Sturgeon R. A correlation between the Geriatric Depression Scale long and short forms. J Gerontol 1989;44:124–5.

Harper RG, Kotik‐Harper D, Kirby H. Psychometric assessment of depression in an elderly generally medical population. J Nerv Ment Dis 1990;178:113–9.

Katz PP, Yelin EH. Prevalence and correlates of depressive symptoms among persons with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1993;20:790–6.

Olin JT, Schneider LS, Eaton EM, Zemansky MF, Pollack VE. The Geriatric Depression Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory as screening instruments in an older adult outpatient population. Psychol Assess 1992;4:190–2.

Rule BG, Harvey HZ, Dobbs AR. Reliability of the Geriatric Depression Scale for younger adults. Clin Gerontol 1989;9:37–43.

Sheikh JI, Yesavage JA, Brooks JO 3rd, Freidman L, Gratzinger R, Hill RD, et al. Proposed factor structure of the Geriatric Depression Scale. Int Psychogeriatr 1991;3:23–8.

HOSPITAL ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION SCALE (HADS)

Description

Purpose.

To assess anxiety and depressive symptoms in a general medical population.

Versions.

Original. No additional versions have been developed.

Populations.

General medical outpatients ages 16–65 years.

Developer/contact information.

A. S. Zigmond and R. P. Snaith, St. James' University Hospital at Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Content.

There are 7 depression items measuring cognitive and emotional aspects of depression, predominantly anhedonia, intermingled with 7 anxiety items that focus on cognitive and emotional aspects of anxiety. Somatic items relating to emotional and physical disorders are excluded.

Subscales.

Anxiety subscale (HADS‐A) and depression subscale (HADS‐D).

Endorsements.

The HADS is 1 of 3 instruments (Beck Depression Inventory‐II [BDI‐II], HADS, Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 [PHQ‐9]) endorsed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for use in primary care in measuring baseline depression severity and responsiveness to treatment.

Examples of use.

Used extensively, primarily with psychiatric and medical patients, including the following patient populations: cancer, traumatic brain injury, cardiac, stroke, intellectual disabilities, hepatitis, diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, Parkinson's disease, postpartum women, chronic pain, patients with amputations, and spinal cord injury. Used with rheumatology patients (e.g., lupus, arthritis, fibromyalgia, Sjögren's syndrome), as well as the general population, students, nonpatients, and subjects with chronic medical conditions. Herrmann (43) tabulated HADS literature specifying study type, medical specialty, population, and originating country where validated.

Practical Application

How to obtain.

Copyrighted and available from: GL Assessment, The Chiswick Centre, 414 Chiswick High Road, London, W4 5TF, UK. Order via web site: http://www.gl‐assessment.co.uk/health_and_psychology/resources/hospital_anxiety_scale/hospital_anxiety_scale.asp?css=1. A test manual (44) accompanies the scale and describes administration, scoring procedures, and psychometrics. Additional scoring forms can be ordered via the web site as well. Items comprising the scale can be viewed in the article by Zigmond and Snaith (45).

Method of administration.

Paper and pencil self‐administered questionnaire. In cases of illiteracy or poor vision, oral administration may be used.

Responses.

Scale.

The scale is a 4‐point Likert scale, ranging from 0–3.

Score range.

0–42 for the total score; 0–21 for the HADS‐A and HADS‐D.

Scoring.

Sum the ratings of 14 items to yield a total score; sum the rating on 7 items on each subscale to yield separate scores for anxiety and depression.

Missing data.

The test administrator's web site recommends that the score for a single missing item from a subscale is inferred by using the mean of the remaining 6 items. If >1 item is missing, then the subscale should be judged as invalid.

Score interpretation.

Higher scores indicate greater severity. Zigmond and Snaith (45) originally recommend the following cutoff scores for the subscales: 0–7 = considered noncase, 8–10 = considered possible case, and 11–21 = considered probable case, which have been reclassified and relabeled as follows: 0–7 = normal, 8–10 = mild, 11–15 = moderate, and ≥16 = severe (44).

Respondent burden.

Time to administer/complete: ≤5 minutes.

Administrative burden.

Training to administer.

None; designed as easy, short, and to be administered in the clinic.

Time to score.

1–2 minutes.

Training to interpret.

Minimal.

Translations/adaptations.

Available in English, as well as all other languages of Western Europe and many of Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, along with some African and Far East languages, including Arabic, Chinese, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Hebrew, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Thai, and Urdu.

Psychometric Information

Method of development.

The 8 items for the HADS‐D were originally created by the developers based on symptoms of anhedonia; the 8 items for the HADS‐A were chosen from the Present State Examination, as well as the developers' personal research on symptoms of anxiety and the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (45). Somatic symptoms and symptoms of severe mental disorder were excluded. Items comprising the subscales were intercorrelated and the weaker of the 2 items on each subscale removed, resulting in two 7‐item subscales comprised of statistically significantly interrcorrelated items on each.

Acceptability.

The HADS is written at a third‐grade reading level (46).

Reliability.

Internal consistency.

Cronbach's α ranges from 0.78–0.93 for the HADS‐A and from 0.82–0.90 for the HADS‐D (47). Similar coefficient alphas were observed for translated versions.

Test–retest.

High test–retest correlations (r = >0.80) were found after ≤2 weeks and gradually decrease as time lapses (2–6 weeks = 0.73–0.76 and >6 weeks = 0.70).

Validity.

Content.

The HADS relies on anhedonia, not on somatic symptoms, and is sensitive to mild distress as it excludes symptoms of severe mental illness. Construction of the HADS‐D minimizes the effect of somatic disorders associated with depression.

Concurrent.

Correlations with corresponding measures of the same theoretical construct (i.e., anxiety or depression) were adequate. Significantly higher correlations were found between the HADS‐D and observer ratings and self‐assessments for depression than with observer ratings and self‐ratings of anxiety; a similar finding was identified with measures of anxiety and the HADS‐A. Compared to commonly used depression and anxiety measures (BDI, PHQ, State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory, Symptom Checklist‐90‐Revised), correlations with the HADS‐D and HADS‐A ranged between 0.60 (good) and 0.80 (very good) (47, 48).

Discriminant.

The correlation between the HADS‐A and HADS‐D averages 0.56 (range 0.49–0.74), with this 2‐dimension factor supported in literature review.

Sensitivity/responsiveness to change.

Designed to identify probable “cases” of anxiety or depression, the HADS is not a diagnostic tool and is a poor predictor of making a specific diagnosis (49). Average sensitivities and specificities are ≥0.80, similar to other self‐rating screening tools (43, 47). The tabulation by Bjelland (2001) estimated HADS sensitivity and specificity at optimal cutoffs. Silverstone (49) and Goldberg (50) compared HADS‐D scores with standard clinical assessments in medical patients. Sensitivity estimates ranged from 56–100%, and specificity estimates ranged from 73–94%. Positive predictive values ranged from 19–70%. These estimates favorably compare to studies using the BDI/BDI‐II, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, and PHQ/PHQ‐9. Scores have also been found responsive to pharmacologic and psychotherapeutic interventions (43).

Critical Appraisal of Overall Value to the Rheumatology Community

Strengths.

Time efficient, widely used with many different populations, and many translations available. The HADS is a reliable valid method for assessing emotional distress in medical populations. Despite its brevity, the HADS screens for possible anxiety and depressive symptoms are similar to more comprehensive clinical measures.

Caveats and cautions.

A recent review of use in rheumatoid arthritis patients found much larger effect sizes when the HADS was used compared to other measures of depression (50).

Clinical usability.

High. The HADS can be used in clinical and research settings, and may be particularly useful when studying the cognitive processes associated with depressive symptoms and anxiety, since it is free of physical symptoms, such as insomnia and weight loss.

Research usability.

High. The HADS has good psychometric properties, making it a good choice to measure psychological distress, to differentiate the symptoms of depression and anxiety, or to examine the impact of cognition on depression or anxiety (47).

Additional references.

Cameron IM, Crawford JR, Lawton K, Reid IC. Psychometric comparison of PHQ‐9 and HADS for measuring depression severity in primary care. Br J Gen Pract 2008;58:32–6.

Johnston M, Pollard B, Hennessey P. Construct validation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale with clinical populations. J Psychosom Res 2000;48:579–84.

Mykleton A, Stordal E, Dahl AA. Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: factor structure, item analysis and internal consistency in a large population. Br J Psychol 2001;179:540–4.

Snaith RP. The Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:1–4.

Snaith RP, Zigmond AS. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [letter]. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986; 292:344.

PATIENT HEALTH QUESTIONNAIRE‐9 (PHQ‐9)

Description

Purpose.

To detect and measure depression and severity in medical populations in clinical settings.

Versions.

The PHQ (and subsequent variants, which include the Brief PHQ, PHQ‐9, PHQ‐8, and PHQ‐2) was developed from the historical Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders (PRIME‐MD), which was shortened to maximize clinical usefulness by combining the 2 original components into a 3‐page (or 4‐page, depending on administrator preference) self‐administered version called the PRIME‐MD Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) (51). A 2‐page version, the Brief PHQ, has also been developed. The PHQ‐9 and the shorter PHQ‐2 are the depression modules of the PHQ and currently the most widely used versions in clinical settings. Another variant, the PHQ‐8, is used primarily in research studies and includes all items of the PHQ‐9 except the ninth item that pertains to self‐harm. There are multiple other variants of the PHQ used to measure anxiety, somatic symptoms, or depression– anxiety–somatic combinations, which can be found on Pfizer's web site (http://www.phqscreeners.com/).

Populations.

The PHQ was validated using 3,000 primary care patients in 8 different clinics and 3,000 obstetrics/ gynecology patients in 7 different clinics (51, 52).

Developers/contact information.

Robert L. Spitzer, MD, and Janet B. W. Williams, DSW, Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University, New York, New York, and Kurt Kroenke MD, Regenstrief Institute and Department of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Content.

The 9 items on the PHQ‐9 consist of the 9 criteria on which the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM‐IV) depressive disorder diagnoses are based (53).

Number of items.

9 items in the PHQ‐9 and 2 in the PHQ‐2.

Recall period for items.

Last 2 weeks.

Endorsements.

The Veterans Health Administration uses the PHQ‐2 as its screening tool for depression in primary care, with a positive screen (score of ≥3) triggering request for completion of the full PHQ‐9 and/or additional evaluation for suicide risk, which has been recommended by the developers. PHQ‐9 is 1 of 3 instruments (Beck Depression Inventory‐II [BDI‐II], Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, PHQ‐9) endorsed by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence for use in primary care in measuring baseline depression severity and responsiveness to treatment.

Examples of use.

Studies utilizing the PHQ‐9 have been conducted in a variety of settings using medical populations (e.g., arthritis, fibromyalgia, cancer, cardiac patients, chronic pain, primary care, postpartum women, diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, substance abuse, human immunodeficiency virus), persons with disabilities (e.g., spinal cord injury, cognitive impairment), older adults, college students, adolescents, persons of diversity, and in the nonmedical general population.

Practical Application

How to obtain.

PRIME‐MD, the parent instrument of the PHQ‐9 and PHQ‐2, was developed in part from a grant from Pfizer; Pfizer maintains the following web site: http://www.phqscreeners.com/. The site includes liability disclaimers, the PHQ and Generalized Anxiety Disorder screeners (in multiple languages), as well as the instruction manual and relevant bibliography. The PHQ‐2 is not specifically listed, but includes the first 2 items of the PHQ‐9. These items can also be seen in the PHQ‐2 validation study (54). Downloading is free; there is no cost associated with its use or reproduction.

Gayathri Arun – Parasparam Serial Actress Biography, Photos. Gayathri made her debut in the field of acting through the mega serial named Parasparam telecasted in Asianet TV. It is the remake of most popular Hindi serial ‘diya aur baati hum’. Her character name is Deepthy. Deepthy is a bright and independent young girl who dreams of becoming a honest IAS officer with support from her family. Parasparam serial actress name wiki. Gayatri got huge fan base after she portrays a role of Deepthi in the serial Parasparam airing on Asianet TV. The actress is known for her strong character of Deepthi, the IPS Officer who achieves her dream despite many challenges in family life. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Parasparam is a 1983 Indian Malayalam film, directed by Shajiyem and produced by Jose Brothers. The film stars Venu Nagavally, Zarina Wahab in lead roles. The film had musical score by MB Sreenivasan. Parasparam: The serial is the Malayalam adaptation of the star plus serial Diya Aur Bati Hum. Gayatri plays the Malayalam version of Deepika Singh. Parasparam has other leading actors namely Vivek Gopan as Sooraj, Rekha Ratheesh as Padmavati, Divya Nithin. Parasparam Serial Cast – Complete Cast Details of With All Actor and Actress Names. As Per TAM Ratings Parasparam Is the Most Popular Serial with Top Ratings. This Serial Is The Remake of Diya Aur Baati Hum Directed by Sudheesh Shankar and Produced by Ross Petals. En Kanavan En Thozhan In Tamil,Ee Tharam Illalu In Telugu, Tomay Amay Mile In Bangla and Akashadeepa In Kannada Are.

Method of administration.

Pencil and paper self‐report or interview.

Responses.

Scale.

A 4‐point scale indicates degree of severity; items are rated from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day).

Scoring.

Sum the severity ratings of each depression item.

Score interpretation.

Severity.

The developers report the following interpretive guidelines for the PHQ‐9 as a severity measure: 1–4 = no depression, 5–9 = mild depression, 10–14 = moderate depression, 15–19 = moderately severe depression, and 20–27 = severe depression (53).

Diagnostic.

As a diagnostic measure, the developers recommend a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) be considered if ≥5 of the 9 symptom criteria have been present at least “more than half the days” in the past 2 weeks, and if 1 of the symptoms is depressed mood or anhedonia or the criteria of “thoughts that you would be dead or of hurting yourself in some way” is present at all. Consideration of diagnosis of other depressive disorders is recommended if 2, 3, or 4 of the 9 symptom criteria have been present at least “more than half the days” in the past 2 weeks, and 1 of the symptoms is depressed mood or anhedonia, with the recommendation that a clinical evaluation be the final determination of depressive disorder diagnosis (53).

Respondent burden.

Time to administer/complete: PHQ‐9: <3 minutes, PHQ‐2: <1 minute.

Administrative burden.

Equipment needed.

Pen or pencil to indicate response.

Training to score.

Minimal.

Training to interpret.

Minimal training is required for health professionals who can provide appropriate psychotherapeutic intervention and referrals to diagnosed individuals. Clinical supervision may be needed; interviewers may need to provide individuals meeting the criteria for depressive disorders with treatment approaches (pharmacologic and/or psychological), including referral options.

Translations/adaptations.

The PHQ‐9 has been widely translated into many languages, including Spanish, French, Arabic, German, Czech, Dutch, Russian, German, Hindi, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, and Polish, among others; full availability can be found on the web site (www.phqscreens.com/overview.aspx).

Psychometric Information

Method of development.

The original PRIME‐MD instrument is a 2‐stage (screening component with followup interview modules [based on positive screening items]) diagnostic instrument designed for primary care physicians in general medical settings to identify persons with mental disorders (55). The followup interview for positive screening for depression is the PRIME‐MD‐Mood Module. The PRIME‐MD‐Mood Module was developed to guide the clinician to a criterion‐based diagnosis of depressive disorders based on the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition, Revised (DSM‐III‐R), now updated to the DSM‐IV. The PRIME‐MD 2‐stage components were combined into a single 3‐page questionnaire (PHQ) that can be self‐administered. The PHQ‐9 is the 9‐item depression module (equivalent to the PRIME‐MD‐Mood Module) from the full PHQ. The PHQ‐2 consists of the first 2 items on the PHQ‐9.

Acceptability.

One literature source reported the PHQ‐9 is written at the eighth‐grade reading level (9); however, Microsoft Word Flesch‐Kincaid analysis conducted by the authors revealed reading grade levels of 3.5–5.0 for versions of the PHQ‐9 freely accessible via the internet.

Reliability.

Internal consistency.

Cronbach's α was reported by developers to be 0.89 and 0.86 in the validation studies of the PHQ‐9 (53).

Test–retest.

Correlations between patient self‐administered results and telephone reassessment within 48 hours ranged from 0.84–0.95 (53, 56) and from 0.81–0.96 at 7‐day reassessment (57).

Validity.

Content.

Items developed directly from DSM‐III‐R criteria, now updated to DSM‐IV, thereby a diagnostic tool.

Construct.

Interviews with mental health providers revealed a positive predictive value ranging from 31% for a PHQ‐9 cutoff of 9 to 51% for a cutoff of 15 in a sample with a 7% prevalence of MDD (56). In this same sample, positive predictive values for MDD of 21% for a PHQ‐2 cutoff of 2 and 56% for a PHQ‐2 cutoff of 5 were found; for any depressive disorder, positive predictive values of 48% for a PHQ‐2 cutoff of 2 to 85% for a PHQ‐2 cutoff of 5 were found (54).

Criterion.

Severity of depression as measured by the PHQ‐9 was found to be highly correlated with scores on the BDI in the general population (r = 0.73) (58). Strong associations were also found between the PHQ‐9 and 20‐item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐20) scores, particularly those scales most strongly related to depression (e.g., mental health), as well as with self‐reported disability days, clinic visits, and the amount of difficulty self‐attributed to symptoms (56). Similarly strong correlations were found between PHQ‐2 and SF‐20 scores, with the strongest correlation again with mental health (range 0.63–0.70) (57). In addition, test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and area under the receiver operator curve) were found to be similar for the PHQ‐2 in comparison to the Symptom‐Driven Diagnostic System for Primary Care, Medical Outcomes Study, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D), 10‐item CES‐D, BDI, and 13‐item BDI version (59).

Sensitivity/responsiveness to change.

Utilizing a decline in PHQ‐9 score of ≥5 points as an indicator of significant response to treatment or reduction in depression is recommended (57, 60).

Critical Appraisal of Overall Value to the Rheumatology Community

Strengths.

Time efficient, strong psychometric properties, widely used with many different populations, sensitive to treatment, can be used for both depressive disorders diagnostic and depression severity purposes, and available in the public domain.

Caveats and cautions.

If using the PHQ‐2 and scores are >3, developers recommend administration of the full PHQ‐9 and assessment by qualified personnel.

Clinical usability.

Beck Depression Inventory Ii Download

High. Has demonstrated utility in efficiently identifying depressive disorders and quantifying depression severity in the medical populations, including rheumatology populations.

Research usability.

High. Strong psychometric properties support use.

Additional references.

Gilbody S, Richards D, Brealey S, Hewitt C. Screening for depression in medical setting with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ): a diagnostic meta‐analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:1596–602.

Hancock P, Larner AJ. Clinical utility of Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 (PHQ‐9) in memory clinics. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 2009;13:188–91.

Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Lowe B. The Patient Health Questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: a systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2010;32:345–59.

Beck Depression Inventory Manual

Lowe B, Schenkel I, Carney‐Doebbeling C, Gobel C. Responsiveness of the PHQ‐9 to pharmacological depression treatment. Psychosomatics 2006;47:62–7.

Margaretten M, Yelin E, Imboden J, Graf J, Barton J, Katz P, et al. Predictors of depression in a multiethnic cohort of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2009;61:1586–91.

Sleath B, Chewning B, De Vellis BM, Weinberger M, De Vellis RF, Tudor G, et al. Communication about depression during rheumatoid arthritis patient visits. Arthritis Rheum 2008;59:186–91.

Beck Depression Inventory Ii Printable

Beck Depression Inventory Manual Pdf

• * BDI‐II = Beck Depression Inventory‐II; CES‐D = Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale; RA = rheumatoid arthritis; GDS = Geriatric Depression Scale; HADS = Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; PHQ‐9 = Patient Health Questionnaire‐9; DSM‐IV = Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition.

Beck Depression Inventory Ii Free

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Beck Depression Inventory Ii Manual Pdf

Both authors were involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and both authors approved the final version to be published.

Beck Depression Inventory Ii Pdf

• 1,. An inventory for measuring depression.Arch Gen Psychiatry1961; 4: 561– 71.
• 2,. Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press;1979.
  Web of Science®Google Scholar
• 3,. Beck Depression Inventory: second edition manual. San Antonio (TX): The Psychological Corporation;1996.
• 4,. BDI: Fast Screen for medical patients manual. San Antonio (TX): The Psychological Corporation;2000.
• 5,. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio (TX): The Psychological Corporation;1987.
• 6,. Screening for major depression in post‐myocardial infarction patients: operating characteristics of the Beck Depression Inventory‐II.Int J Psychiatry Med2010; 40: 187– 97.
  CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 7. Review of the Beck Depression Inventory (revised edition). In: JJ Kramer, JC Conoley, editors. Mental measurements yearbook. 11th ed.Lincoln (NB): University of Nebraska Press;1987. p. 78– 9.
• 8. Handbook of psychological assessment. 4th ed.Hoboken (NJ): Wiley;2003.
  Web of Science®Google Scholar
• 9,. Are gold standard depression measures appropriate for use in geriatric cancer patients? A systematic evaluation of self‐report depression instruments used with geriatric, cancer, and geriatric cancer samples.J Clin Oncol2010; 28: 348– 56.
• 10,. Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: twenty‐five years of evaluation.Clin Psychol Rev1988; 8: 77– 100.
  CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 11, et al. Gradations of clinical severity and sensitivity to change assessed with the Beck Depression Inventory‐II in Japanese patients with depression.Psychiatry Res2005; 135: 229– 35.
• 12,. Factor structure of the Beck Depression Inventory‐II in a medical outpatient sample.J Clin Psychol Med Settings2003; 10: 289– 91.
  CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 13,. The efficacy of somatic symptoms in assessing depression in older primary care patients.Clin Gerontol2003; 27: 43– 57.
• 14,. Screening for depression in the older adult: criterion validity of the 10‐item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D).Arch Intern Med1999; 159: 1701– 4.
  CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 15,. Reliability and validity of screening scales: effect of reducing scale length.J Clin Epidemiol 198; 42: 69– 78.
• 16, et al. Development of a shortened Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for assessment of depression in rheumatoid arthritis.Rehabil Psychol2006; 51: 135– 9.
  CrossrefWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 17,. Depressive symptoms in elderly women with chronic conditions: measurement issues.Aging Ment Health2009; 13: 64– 72.
• 18,. Screening for depressive disorder in children and adolescents: validating the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children.Am J Epidemiol1990; 131: 538– 51.
  CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 19. The CES‐D scale: a self‐report depression scale for research in the general population.Appl Psychol Meas1977; 1: 385– 401.
• 20,. The criterion validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D) in a sample of self‐referred elders with depressive symptomatology.Int J Geriatr Psychiatry2004; 19: 558– 63.
  Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 21,. Detecting depression in chronic pain patients: adequacy of self‐reports.Behav Res Ther1994; 32: 9– 16.
• 22,. Validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale in arthritis populations.Arthritis Rheum1989; 32: 991– 7.
  Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 23,. Assessment of depression in rheumatoid arthritis: a modified version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale.Arthritis Rheum2003; 49: 549– 55.
  Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 24,. The Beck Depression Inventory, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D), and General Well‐Being Schedule Depression Subscale in rheumatoid arthritis.Arthritis Care Res1991; 4: 3– 11.
• 25, et al. A comparison of self‐reports of distress and affective disorder diagnoses in rheumatoid arthritis: a receiver operator characteristic analysis.Arthritis Rheum2003; 49: 368– 76.
  Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 26,. Factorial and discriminant validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES‐D) Scale.J Clin Psychol1986; 42: 28– 33.
  Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 27, et al. Analyzing reliability of change in depression among persons with rheumatoid arthritis.Arthritis Rheum2005; 53: 973– 8.
  Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 28,. Two shorter forms of the CES‐D depression symptoms index.J Aging Health1993; 5: 179– 93.
• 29,. Use of the Center for Epidemiological Studies‐Depression Scale with older adults.Clin Gerontol1986; 5: 119– 36.
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 30,. The Community Mental Health Assessment Survey and the CES‐D Scale. In: MM Weismann, JK Meyers, CG Ross, editors. Community survey of psychiatric disorder. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press;1985. p. 177– 89.
• 31,. Screening tests for geriatric depression.Clin Gerontol1982; 1: 37– 44.
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 32, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report.J Psychiatr Res1983; 17: 37– 49.
• 33,. Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): recent evidence and development of a shorter version.Clin Gerontol1986; 5:165–73.
• 34,. The Geriatric Depression Scale: a comprehensive review.J Clin Geropsychol1998; 4: 89– 110.
• 35,. Screening performance of the 15‐item Geriatric Depression Scale in a diverse elderly home care population.Am J Geriatr Psychiatry2008; 16: 914– 21.
  CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 36,. Screening for depression in older medical inpatients.Int J Geriatr Psychiatry2006; 21: 469– 76.
  Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 37,. Test‐characteristics of the GDS‐15 in screening for major depression in elderly patients in clinical practice.Clin Gerontol2005; 29: 1– 9.
• 38,. Test characteristics of the 15‐item Geriatric Depression Scale and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in Parkinson disease.Am J Geriatr Psychiatry2006; 14: 169– 75.
  CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 39,. Psychometric properties of the 15‐item Geriatric Depression Scale in functionally impaired, cognitively intact, community‐dwelling elderly primary care patients.J Am Geriatr Soc2005; 53: 1570– 6.
  Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 40,. A psychometric study of the Geriatric Depression Scale.Eur J Psychol Assess2010; 26: 55– 60.
• 41,. Evaluation of the feasibility, reliability, and diagnostic value of shortened versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale.Br J Gen Pract1995; 45: 195– 9.
  CASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 42,. Diagnostic validity and added value of the Geriatric Depression Scale for depression in primary care: a meta‐analysis of the GDS‐30 and GDS‐15.J Affect Disord2010; 125: 10– 7.
• 43. International experiences with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: a review of validation data and clinical results.J Psychosom Res1997; 42: 17– 41.
  CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 44,. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale manual. Windsor, Berkshire (UK): Nfer‐Nelson;1994.
• 45,. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale.Acta Psychiatr Scand1983; 67: 361– 70.
  Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 46, et al. Comparative validity of three screening questionnaires for DSM‐IV depressive disorders and physicians' diagnoses.J Affect Dis2004; 78: 131– 40.
• 47,. The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: an updated literature review.J Psychosom Res2002; 52: 69– 77.
  CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 48. Poor efficacy of the Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale in the diagnosis of major depressive disorder in both medical and psychiatric patients.J Psychosom Res1994; 38: 441– 50.
• 49. Identifying psychiatric illness among general medical patients.Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)1985; 29: 161– 2.
  CrossrefGoogle Scholar
• 50,. Depression in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review of the literature with meta‐analysis.Psychosom Med2002; 64: 52– 60.
• 51, and the Patient Health Questionnaire Primary Care Study Group. Validation and utility of a self‐report version of PRIME‐MD: the PHQ (Patient Health Questionnaire) primary care study.JAMA1999; 282: 1737– 44.
  CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 52,. Validity and utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire in assessment of 3000 obstetric‐gynecologic patients: the PRIME‐MD Patient Health Questionnaire Obstetrics‐Gynecology Study.Am J Obstet Gynecol2000; 183: 759– 69.
• 53,. The PHQ‐9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.J Gen Int Med2001; 16: 606– 13.
  Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 54,. The Patient Health Questionnaire‐2: validity of a two‐item depression screener.Med Care2003: 41; 1284– 92.
• 55, et al. Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care: the PRIME‐MD 1000 study.JAMA1994; 272: 1749– 56.
  CrossrefCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 56,. Assessing depression in primary care with the PHQ‐9: can it be carried out over the telephone?J Gen Int Med2005; 20: 738– 42.
  Wiley Online LibraryPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 57,. Monitoring depression treatment outcomes with the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9.Med Care2004; 42: 1194– 201.
• 58,. Validity of the Brief Patient Health Questionnaire Mood Scale (PHQ‐9) in the general population.Gen Hosp Psychiatry2006; 28: 71– 7.
  CrossrefPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 59,. Case‐finding instruments for depression: two questions are as good as many.J Gen Int Med1997; 12: 439– 45.
  Wiley Online LibraryCASPubMedWeb of Science®Google Scholar
• 60,. The PHQ‐9: a new depression diagnostic and severity measure.Psychiatr Ann2002; 32: 1– 7.