Skip to main content
Log in

Methodological aspects in the assessment of severity of depression by the Hamilton Depression Scale

  • Rating Scales
  • Published:
European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Observer-rating scales are used for the evaluation of drug trials in depression. One of the most widely used depression rating scales is still the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD), which was developed at the time when the first antidepressants were becoming available. Due to its construction it seems to have a specific focus on drug effects of classical antidepressants. As a result of different methodological analyses such as principal component analysis, the Rasch model and facet analysis, a differentiation between core symptoms reflecting the severity of depression and additional symptoms describing other aspects of the symptomatology of depression seems meaningful. The use of the HAMD 6-item score, described primarily by Bech, as the main efficacy criterion in antidepressant drug trials gives a fair estimation of drug-induced changes of severity of depression and avoids bias such as the well-known bias of the HAMD total score in favour of tricyclic antidepressants. This is demonstrated by the evaluation of two sertraline-amitriptyline comparative studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bech P (1990) Psychometric developments of the Hamilton scales: the spectrum of depression, dysthymia, and anxiety. In: Bech P, Coppen A (eds) The Hamilton Scales. Springer, Berlin, pp 72–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Bech P, Rafaelsen OJ (1980) The use of rating scales exemplified by a comparison of the Hamilton and Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 62 (Suppl 285): 128–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bech P, Gram LF, Dein E, Jacobsen O, Vitger J, Bolwig TG (1975) Quantitative rating of depressive states. Acta Psychiat Scand 51:161–170

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bech P, Allerup P, Gram LF, Reisby N, Rosenberg R, Jacobsen O, Nagy A (1981) The Hamilton depression scale. Evaluation of objectivity using logistic models. Acta Psychiatr Scand 63:290–299

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Berrios GE, Bulbena-Villarasa A (1990) The Hamilton depression scale and the numerical description of the symptoms of depression. In: Bech P, Coppen A (eds) The Hamilton Scales. Springer, Berlin, pp 80–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg I (1979) Some basic concepts of facet theory. In: Lingoes JC, Roskam EE, Borg I (eds) Geometric Representation of Relational Data. Mathesis Press, Arm Arbor, MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Canter D (1985) Facet Theory. Approaches to Social Research. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Conti I, Cassano GB (1990) The impact of the Hamilton rating scale for depression on the development of a center for clinical psychophar-macology research. In: Bech P, Coppen A (eds) The Hamilton Scales. Springer, Berlin, pp 20–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Coxon A (1982) The Users Guide to Multidimensional Scaling. Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Domken M, Scott J, Kelly P (1994) What factors predict discrepancies between self and observer ratings of depression? J Affect Disord 31: 253–259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman L (1966) Order analysis of correlation matrices. In: Cattell RB (ed) Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL, pp 439–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Guttman L (1967) The development of nonmetric space analysis: a letter to Professor John Ross. Multivariate Behavior Res 2: 71–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman L (1968) A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika 33: 469–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guttman L (1979) Smallest Space Analysis by the absolute value principle. In: Lingoes JC, Roskam EE, Borg I (eds) Geometric Representation of Relational Data. Mathesis Press, Ann Arbor, MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Guy W (1976) ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology Revised. National Institute of Mental Health, Maryland

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton M (1960) A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 23:56–62

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton M (1967) Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness. Br J Soc Clin Psychol 6:278–296

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton M (1976) Comparative value of rating scales. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1 (Suppl 1): 58–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton M (1986) The Hamilton rating scale for depression. In: Sartorius N, Ban T (eds) Assessment of Depression. Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 143–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes JR, O’Hara MW, Rehm LP (1982) Measurement of depression in clinical trials: an overview. J Clin Psychiatry 43:85–88

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lang F, Pellet J, Postic Y, Beau JM, Lancrenon S, Blanchon Y et al. (1991) Widlocher’s Depressive Retardation Scale and Montgomery Asberg’s Depression Rating Scale: an inter-rater study. Eur Psychiatry 6:47–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy S (1981) Lawful roles of facets in social theories. In: Borg I (ed) Multidimensional Data Representation — When and why? Mathesis Press, Arm Arbor, MI, pp 65–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Levy S (1985) Lawful roles of facets in social theory. In: Canter D (ed) Facet Theory. Approaches to Social Research. Springer, New York, pp 59–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingoes JC (1979) Identifying regions in the space for interpretation. In: Lingoes JC, Roskam EE, Borg I (eds) Geometric Representation of Relational Data. Mathesis Press, Arm Arbor, MI, pp 16–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Lingoes JC, Guttman C (1979) Nonmetric factor analysis: a rank reducing alternative to linear factor analysis. In: Lingoes JC, Roskam EE, Borg I (eds) Geometric Representation of Relational Data. Mathesis Press, Arm Arbor, MI, pp 98–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier W (1990) The Hamilton depression scale and its alternatives: a comparison of their reliability and validity. In: Bech P, Coppen A (eds) The Hamilton Scales. Springer, Berlin, pp 64–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier W, Philipp M (1985) Comparative analysis of observer depression scales. Acta Psychiatr Scand 72: 230–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller HJ (1991) Outcome criteria in antidepressant drug trials: self-rating versus observer-rating scales. Pharmacopsychiat 24: 71–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller HJ (2000) Rating depressed patients: observer- vs self-assessment. Eur Psychiatry 15:160–172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Möller HJ, von Zerssen D (1995) Self-rating procedures in the evaluation of antidepressants. Review of the literature and results of our studies. Psychopathology 28:291–306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Möller HJ, Berzewski H, Eckmann F, Gonzalves N, Kissling W, Knorr W, Ressler P, Rudolf GA, Steinmeyer EM, Magyar I et al. (1993) Double-blind multicenter study of paroxetine and amitriptyline in depressed inpatients. Pharmacopsychiatry 26:75–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Möller HJ, Gallinat J, Hegerl U, Aratö M, Janka Z, Pflug B, Bauer H (1998) Double-blind, multicenter comparative study of sertraline and amitriptyline in hospitalized patients with major depression. Pharmacopsychiat 31:170–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Möller HJ, Glaser K, Leverkus F, Göbel C (2000) Double-blind, multi-center comparative study of sertraline versus amitriptyline in outpatients with major depression. Pharmacopsychiat 33:206–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasch G (1960) Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Danish Institute for Educational Research, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • Raveh A (1978) Finding periodical patterns in time series with monotone trend: a new technique. In: Shye S (ed) Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp 371–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Shye S (1978) Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Snaith P (1993) What do depression rating scales measure? Br J Psychiatry 163: 293–298

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger JH, Schönemann PH (1978) A history of factor indeterminancy. In: Shye S (ed) Theory Construction and Data Analysis in the Behavioral Sciences. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp 136–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinmeyer EM, Möller HJ (1992) Facet theoretic analysis of the Hamilton-D scale. J Aff Disord 25:53–62

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Walczak DD, Apter JT, Halikas JA, Borison RL, Carman JS, Post GL, Patrick R, Cohn JB, Cunningham LA, Rittberg B, Preskorn SH, Kang JS, Wilcox ChS (1996) The oral dose-effect relationship for fluvoxamine: a fixed-dose comparison against placebo in depressed outpatients. Ann Clin Psychiaty 8:139–151

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hans-Jürgen Möller.

Additional information

For Professor Per Bech on the occasion of his 60th birthday. With many thanks for our close academic and personal collaboration.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Möller, HJ. Methodological aspects in the assessment of severity of depression by the Hamilton Depression Scale. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Nuerosci 251 (Suppl 2), 13–20 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03035121

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03035121

Key words

Navigation