Montgomery–Asberg depression rating scale in clinical practice: Psychometric properties on Serbian patients

Petar Vojvodić; Ana  Andonov; Dejan  Stevanović; Ivana  Peruničić Mladenović; Goran  Mihajlović; Jovana  Vojvodić

doi:10.2298/VSP171017176V

Petar Vojvodić Klinika za psihijatrijske bolesti "Dr Laza Lazarević"
Ana Andonov Faculty of Media and Communications, Department of Clinical Psychology
Dejan Stevanović Clinic for Neurology and Psychiatry for Children and Youth
Ivana Peruničić Mladenović Institute for Mental Health
Goran Mihajlović Clinic of Psychiatry, Kragujevac
Jovana Vojvodić Clinic for Psychiatric Disorders “Dr Laza Lazarević”

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP171017176V

Keywords: depression;, sensitivity and specificity;, severity of illness index;, surveys and questionnaires

Abstract

Background/Aim. Various rating scales for depression are avalable, but the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is one of the most frequently used scales. The aim of this study was to analyze the measurement properties of the MADRS Serbian version for quantifying depression severity in the clinical setting. Methods. Two studies have been conducted in order to validate the MADRS. The first study included sixty-four adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), with test-retest situation, and the second one included 19 participants (also with MDD), who had six test-retest situations. Psychometric evaluation included descriptive analysis, internal consistency and test-retest reliability, and concurrent validity (correlations with the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale 17 – HAMD-17). Results. The internal consistency for test-retest reliability was 0.93 in total for the MADRS, and for six test-retest situations was 0.95. The MADRS had one factor structure, with explained variance of 66.26% for the first testing, and 61.29% for the retest. There were statistical significant correlations between the MADRS and HAMD-17 (r = 0.96 for test and r = 0.94 for retest). Also, it was shown a great correlation between all items on the MADRS, and for the instrument in total (r = 0.89). Conclusion. The MADRS was shown good statistical results, and it could be used in everyday clinical practice for discriminating MDD.

References

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. (DSM–5). 5th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2013.

Lam RW, Michalaak EE, Swinson RP. Assessment scales in de-pression, mania and anxiety. Assessment scales in depression, mania and anxiety. London: CRC Press; 2004.

Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change, Br J Psychiatry 1979; 134: 382‒9.

Bernstein IH, Rush AJ, Stegman D, Macleod L, Witte B, Trivedi MH. A Comparison of the QIDS-C16, QIDS-SR16, and the MADRS in an Adult Outpatient Clinical Sample. CNS Spectr 2010; 15(7): 458‒68.

Carmody TJ, Rush AJ, Bernstein I, Warden D, Brannan S, Burnham D, et al. The Montgomery Asberg and the Hamilton ratings of depression: a comparison of measures. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2006; 16(8): 601‒11.

Davidson J, Turnbull CD, Strickland R, Miller R, Graves K. The Montgomery‐Åsberg Depression Scale: reliability and validity. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1986; 73(5): 544‒8.

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; 38(2): 289‒300.

Bech P, Allerup P, Larsen ER, Csillag C, Licht RW. The Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D) and the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Scale (MADRS). A psychometric re-analysis of the European genome-based therapeutic drugs for depression study using Rasch analysis. Psychiatry Res 2014; 217(3): 226‒32.

Suzuki A, Aoshima T, Fukasawa T, Yoshida K, Higuchi H, Shimizu T, et al. A three-factor model of the MADRS in major depressive disorder. Depress Anxiety 2005; 21(2): 95‒7.

Soron TR. Validation of Bangla Montgomery Asberg Depres-sion Rating Scale (MADRSB). Asian J Psychiatr 2017; 28: 41‒6.

Carneiro AM, Fernandes F, Moreno RA. Hamilton depression rating scale and montgomery-asberg depression rating scale in depressed and bipolar I patients: psychometric properties in a Brazilian sample. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015; 13: 42.

Liu J, Xiang YT, Lei H, Wang Q, Wang G, Ungvari GS, et al. Guidance on the conversion of the Chinese versions of the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self-Report (C-QIDS-SR) and the Montgomery-Asberg Scale (C-MADRS) in Chinese patients with major depression. J Affect Disord 2014; 152‒154: 530‒3.

Bondolfi G, Jermann F, Rouget BW, 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; 121(3): 268‒72.

Ahn YM, Lee KY, Yi JS, Kang MH, Kim DH, Kim JL, et al. A validation study of the Korean-version of the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc 2005; 44(4): 466–76. (Korean)

Yee A, Yassim AR, Loh HS, Ng CG, Tan KA. Psychometric evaluation of the Malay version of the Montgomery- Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS-BM). BMC Psychiatry 2015; 15: 200.

Ahmadpanah M, Sheikhbabaei M, Haghighi M, Roham F, Jahangard L, Akhondi A, et al. Validity and test-retest reliability of the Persian version of the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2016; 12: 603‒7.

Cano JF, Gomez Restrepo C, Rondón M. Validation of the Mont-gomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) in Colom-bia. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr 2016; 45(3): 146‒55. (Spanish)

Lobo A, Chamorro L, Luque A, Dal-Ré R, Badia X, Baró E. Grupo de Validación en Español de Escalas Psicométricas (GVEEP). Validación de las versiones en español de la Mont-gomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale y la Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale para la evaluación de la depresión y de la ansie-dad. Med Clín 2002; 118(13): 493‒9.

Satthapisit S, Posayaanuwat N, Sasaluksananont C, Kaewpornsawan T, Singhakun S. The comparison of Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS thai) to diagnostic and sta-tistical manual of mental disorders (DSM) and to Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD): validity and reliability. J Med Assoc Thai 2007; 90(3): 524‒31

Cunningham JL, Wernroth L, von Knorring L, Berglund L, Ekselius L. Agreement between physicians' and patients' ratings on the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale. J Affect Disord 2011; 135(1‒3): 148‒53.

Santen G, Danhof M, Della Pasqua O. Sensitivity of the Mont-gomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale to response and its consequences for the assessment of efficacy. J Psychiatr Res 2009; 43(12): 1049‒56.

Müller MJ, Himmerich H, Kienzle B, Szegedi A. Differentiating moderate and severe depression using the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale (MADRS). J Affect Disord 2003; 77(3): 255‒60.

Zimmerman M, Posternak MA, Chelminski I. Derivation of a definition of remission on the Montgomery-Asberg depression rating scale corresponding to the definition of remission on the Hamilton rating scale for depression. J Psychiatr Res 2004; 38(6): 577‒82.

Reijnders JS, Lousberg R, Leentjens AF. Assessment of depression in Parkinson's disease: the contribution of somatic symptoms to the clinimetric performance of the Hamilton and Montgomery-Asberg rating scales. J Psychosom Res 2010; 68(6): 561‒5.

Hamilton M. Development of a rating scale for primary depres-sive illness. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 1967; 6(4): 278‒96.

Williams JB. A structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988; 45(8): 742‒7.

World Health Organization. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: Clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.

Streiner D, Norman G. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. 4rd ed. Oxford: Ox-ford University Press; 2008.

George D, Mallery P. SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Ba-con; 2003.

Benazzi F. Factor analysis of the Montgomery Asberg Depres-sion Rating Scale in 251 bipolar II and 306 unipolar depressed outpatients. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 2001; 25(7): 1369‒76.

Lobo A, Chamorro L, Luque A, Dal-Ré R, Badia X, Baró E Gru-po de Validación en Español de Escalas Psicométricas (GVEEP). Validation of the Spanish versions of the Mont-gomery-Asberg depression and Hamilton anxiety rating scales. Med Clin (Barc) 2002; 118(13): 493-9. (Spanish)

Yi JS, Bae SO, Ahn YM, Park DB, Noh KS, Shin HK, et al. Va-lidity and Reliability of the Korean Version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale(K-HDRS). J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc 2005; 44(4): 456‒65.

Schmidtke A, Fleckenstein P, Moises W, Beckmann H. Studies of the reliability and validity of the German version of the Mont-gomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)]. Schweiz Arch Neurol Psychiatr (1985) 1988; 139(2): 51‒65. (German)