Validity shows the degree of concurrence between the results received by an actual measuring and that of what an instrument is supposed to measure. There are three main types of validity: content validity, criterion-related validity and construct validity. Factor validity is a special approach to constructive validity, tested by statistical analysis called factor analysis. Hamilton rating scale for depression and Montgomery-Asberg depression scale are the most widely used psychiatric instruments. The aim was to carry out a systematic review of the literature on factor structure of psychiatric scales reported in different times during longitudinal studies. The units of analysis were published papers obtained by searching the two bibliographic databases: MEDLINE and PsycINFO. Factor validity of the HAMD scale was reported in 6 (0.09%) of 6590 studies which used this scale, whereas the factor validity of the MADRS scale was reported in 4 (0.2%) of 2051 studies which used the MADRS scale. The difference between the first and the last measuring in relation to values was not statistically significant: median of the number of extracted factors of the HAMD scale (p=0.371), median of total explained factor variance of the HAMD scale (p=0.250), median of variance explained by the first factor of the HAMD scale (p=0.125). Factor validity of the MADRS scale in repeated measuring also did not have statistically significant difference for the following values: median of the number of extracted factors of the MADRS scale (p=0.174), median of variance explained by the first factor of the MADRS scale (p=0.125). Coefficients of concurrent validity of the HAMD i MADRS depression scales show the trend of increase in longitudinal studies and their values are for about a third higher at the end of studies than in their beginning. Low frequency of reporting the data about reliability and validity of applied rating scales is the main problem in using the meta-analytical methods effectively to study changes in adequacy of measures in longitudinal studies.
Cohen R, Swerdlik M. Psychological Testing and Assessment: An Introduction to Tests and Measurement. 2009;
2.
Guion R. On Trinitarian doctrines of validity. Prof Psychol. 1980;
3.
Kaplan R, Saccuzzo D. Psychological Testing: Principles, Applications, and Issues. 2013;
4.
Fajgelj S. Metode istraživanja ponašanja. 2007;
5.
Myers K, Winters N. Ten-year review of rating scales. I: overview of scale functioning, psychometric properties, and selection. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002;(2):114–22.
6.
Fajgelj S. Psihometrija: metod i teorija psihološkog merenja, IV dopunjeno izdanje. 2013;
7.
Iannuzzo R, Jaeger J, Goldberg J, Kafantaris V, Sublette M. Development and reliability of the HAM-D/MADRS interview: an integrated depression symptom rating scale. Psychiatry Res. 2006;(1):21–37.
8.
Leucht S, Fennema H, Engel R, Kaspers-Janssen M, Lepping P, Szegedi A. What does the HAMD mean? J Affect Disord. 2013;(2–3):243–8.
9.
Licht R, Qvitzau S, Allerup P, Bech P. Validation of the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale and the Hamilton Depression Scale in patients with major depression; is the total score a valid measure of illness severity? Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2005;(2):144–9.
10.
Doering L, Cross R, Magsarili M, Howitt L, Cowan M. Utility of observer-rated and self-report instruments for detecting major depression in women after cardiac surgery: a pilot study. Am J Crit Care. 2007;(3):260–9.
11.
Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;56–62.
12.
Montgomery S, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;382–9.
13.
Asberg M, Montgomery S, Perris C, Schalling D, Sedvall G. A comprehensive psychopathological rating scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 1978;(271):5–27.
14.
Leucht S, Fennema H, Engel R, Kaspers-Janssen M, Lepping P, Szegedi A. What does the MADRS mean? Equipercentile linking with the CGI using a company database of mirtazapine studies. J Affect Disord. 2017;287–93.
15.
Shafer A;, Beck CD, Hamilton, Zung. Meta-analysis of the factor structures of four depression questionnaires. J Clin Psychol. 2006;(1):123–46.
16.
Higuchi H, Sato K, Yoshida K, Takahashi H, Kamata M, Otani K, et al. No predictors of antidepressant patient response to milnacipran were obtained using the three-factor structures of the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale in Japanese patients with major depressive disorders. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2008;(2):197–202.
17.
Uher R, Farmer A, Maier W, Rietschel M, Hauser J, Marusic A, et al. Measuring depression: comparison and integration of three scales in the GENDEP study. Psychol Med. 2008;(2):289–300.
18.
Laenen A, Alonso A, Molenberghs G, Vangeneugden T, Mallinckrodt C. Using longitudinal data from a clinical trial in depression to assess the reliability of its outcome scales. J Psychiatr Res. 2009;(7):730–8.
19.
Addington D, Addington J, Atkinson M. A psychometric comparison of the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Schizophr Res. 1996;(2–3):205–12.
20.
Bent-Hansen J, Lunde M, Klysner R, Andersen M, Tanghoj P, Solstad K, et al. The validity of the depression rating scales in discriminating between citalopram and placebo in depression recurrence in the maintenance therapy of elderly unipolar patients with major depression. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2003;(6):313–6.
21.
Maier W, Philipp M, Gerken A. Dimensions of the Hamilton Depression Scale. Factor analysis studies. Eur Arch Psychiatry Neurol Sci. 1985;(6):417–22.
22.
Schennach R, Obermeier M, Seemüller F, Jäger M, Schmauss M, Laux G, et al. Evaluating depressive symptoms in schizophrenia: a psychometric comparison of the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Psychopathology. 2012;(5):276–85.
23.
Steinmeyer E, Möller H. Facet theoretic analysis of the Hamilton-D scale. J Affect Disord. 1992;(1):53–61.
24.
Bent-Hansen J, Lunde M, Klysner R, Andersen M, Tanghøj P, Solstad K, et al. The validity of the depression rating scales in discriminating between citalopram and placebo in depression recurrence in the maintenance therapy of elderly unipolar patients major depression. Pharmacopsychiatry. 2003;(6):313–6.
25.
Bondolfi G, Jermann F, Rouget B, Gex-Fabry M, Mcquillan A, Dupont-Willemin A, et al. Self-and clinician-rated Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale: evaluation in clinical practice. J Affect Disord. 2010;(3):268–72.
26.
Galinowski A, Lehert P. Structural validity of MADRS during antidepressant treatment. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1995;(3):157–61.
27.
Rocca P, Fonzo V, Ravizza L, Rocca G, Scotta M, Zanalda E, et al. A comparison of paroxetine and amisulpride in the treatment of dysthymic disorder. J Affect Disord. 2002;(3):313–7.
28.
Möller H. Observer rating scales. 2014;
29.
Hamilton M. Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness. Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1967;(4):278–96.
30.
Bech P. Quality of Life and Rating Scales of Depression. 2012;
31.
Fleck M, Poirier-Littre M, Guelfi J, Bourdel M, Loo H. Factorial structure of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1995;(3):168–72.
32.
Fiske A, O’riley A. Depression in Late Life. 2008;
33.
Möller H, Schnitker J. Prospective study using a modified Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale. Nervenarzt. 2007;(6):685–90.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
