Contents:
Assessment Scales in Depression, Mania and Anxiety (Assessment Scales in Psychiatry Series): Medicine & Health Science Books. The only depression rating scale developed in Korea is 'Korean to assess severity and outcome when treating depression and anxiety.
Baron-Cohen, R. Hoekstra, R. Knickmeyer and S. To assess the presence and severity of Autism Spectrum Disorder traits in children and adolescents ages 4 to 11 or as a screening measure to identify individuals who may be in need of further evaluation. Reliability : AQ-Adol: The authors report internal consistency reliabilities alphas of 0. AQ-Child: The authors report internal consistency reliabilities alphas of 0.
Validity: AQ-Adol: The authors report evidence of discriminative validity. AQ-Child: The authors report evidence of discriminative validity and good sensitivity and specificity. Identifies ASD and estimates severity of the disorder. There are 42 items groupled into 3 subscales: stereotypical behaviours, communication and social interaction. There are 22 items and 3 version for 3 stages: Primary care, developmental clinic screener, and autism clinic severity screener. Developed for community service providers who with children in intervention settings.
Has 12 items. Identifies presence and severity of social impairment with autism spectrum and differentials it from that which occurs in other disorders. May be administered and scored by counselors, nurses, physicians, psychologists, social workers, and other trained professionals and paraprofessionals.
Available in French.
BDI can be used for screening and diagnosis of depression, and for monitoring therapeutic progress in both in- and outpatient populations. Provides further information — and patients can complete the inventory on the site and it is scored. Measuring 16 factors across 9 different criterion domains for major depression, this screening test for depression was originally developed at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center.
The WHO-5 [ 7 , 8 ], which constituted a major development in this direction, was expanded in a new self-rating scale for euthymia [ 58 ]. The euthymia scale integrated the areas covered by the WHO-5 the subject feels cheerful, calm, active, interested in things, and sleep is refreshing and restorative with psychological flexibility, a unifying outlook on life, which guides actions and feelings for shaping future accordingly [ 58 ].
A major limitation of the standard psychometric approach to drug trials has to do with the fact that targets of assessment predominantly involve the desired effects of a drug. Bech pioneered assessment of side effects that occur with any type of drug treatment. The UKU [ 59 ] is an example of scale that considerably improved the detection of side effects because of its comprehensive nature. Indeed, such a clinician-administered rating scale covers 48 different potential unwanted effects of psychopharmacological treatment.
Bech [ 60 ] subsequently proposed the concept of the pharmacopsychometric triangle, which consists in the assessment of clinically desired effects, of adverse or side effects and patient-reported quality of life. This latter is the ultimate outcome to achieve after adequate drug therapy. In other terms, the aim of the treatment consists of reaching a balance between the desired versus the undesired effects of the drug under examination by evaluating if the patient has returned to an ordinary well-being [ 23 ].
Evidence-based medicine is focused on the potential benefits that therapy may entail as to baseline risk, but it is likely to neglect the other two dimensions [ 62 ]. A rational approach to treatment takes into account the balance between potential benefits and adverse effects applied to the individual patient [ 62 ].
The achievement of such a balance is hindered by the varying quality and availability of different sources of information, which lead to a faulty clinical integration. The clinician needs to have a clear account of the potential benefits of a specific treatment, as well as of the predictors of responsiveness, and of the potential adverse events that may be triggered by the therapeutic act [ 62 ]. For accomplishing this, a comprehensive clinimetric assessment of clinical variables that drug treatment mobilizes is required. Fava et al. Rating scales have been widely used in scientific research and extensively applied to clinical trials, but several intellectual barriers such as thinking that clinical judgment was sufficient historically limited their use in the daily clinical work of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
They are characterized by performing their scientific activities as clinicians in their attempts to treat the patient and his or her relatives in order to obtain a greater insight into the clinical reality of the disorder under examination. His legacy can become an important source of inspiration for those who are disillusioned with the modest practical results of decades on mainstream psychiatric research.
And I keep on rounding off projects which deal with measurements to make them working for our patients. His door is still open. Copyright: All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication.
However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor s. The publisher and the editor s disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
Forgot your password? Institutional Login Shibboleth or OpenAthens For the academic login, please select your organization on the next page. Forgot Password? Sign up for MyKarger Institutional Login. Download Fulltext PDF. Free Access. Giovanni A. Related Articles for " ". Psychother Psychosom ;— Both of the two groups responded that reasons for not using scales not ranking the first, the second and the third were unfamiliarity, unsecured reliability and validity, lack of information on them and a long time for scoring them. With psychiatrists and clinical psychologists working at the clinical field as subjects this study surveyed frequency of use, depression measures, the subjective degree of satisfaction and the perceived level of agreement between subjective clinicians judgment and rating scales.
Such a study was performed first in the domestic clinical field and it was considered to be a basic research for development of Korean standardized depression diagnosis and rating scales in future. Similar to the results of the survey conducted by Gilbody et al. Also, our results showed that the clinical use of depression rating scales is more frequent in the clinical psychologists than in that of psychiatrists regardless of whether depressive symptoms or not.
This result could be considered to reflect that two groups are clearly different in professional role in clinical practices. Although clinical psychologist's main work is to assessing patients, it is remarkable that most psychiatrists are not generally using quantified measures to evaluate outcome when treating depression patients. To those, foreign studies suggested that psychiatrists did not believe that the regular use of scales would be clinically helpful, and that scales would take too much time to administer and they have a lack of previous training.
Like Zimmerman and McGlinchey, 7 we suspect that psychiatrists were considering clinician rating scales such as the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression 21 when answering why they did not use scales and were not believing depression rating scales to be reliable, valid measures. As the most helpful advantages of the depression rating scales both of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists pointed out rating of severity and screening, so one of main purposes of the scales could be said to be screening.
As results of self-rated inventories such as BDI 9 and those of a structured interview like Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia 23 were found to be similar to a certain degree, the depression rating scales such as BDI have been used widely as a method to screen a group with high possibility of depression. Among domestic and foreign depression rating scales including standardized and non-standardized ones in Korea, the types of depression rating scales currently used in clinical practices field were observed not to be various.
Similar to results of the survey of psychiatrists practising conducted in the UK by Gilbody et al. Namely there were the advantage of self-rating scales, which require little training and do not take much clinician time to administer and score, but there were not used to diagnosis depression. However, the clinician rating scales such as HRSD had the shortcoming in aspect of time and cost as administer systematically training clinicians, but was able to assess more objectively and exactly symptoms and severity.
Moreover, although total 25 depression rating scales including standardized and non-standardized ones were presented, both of the two groups chose only several scales as currently used ones. These results were similar with those of Gilbody et al.
In addition, a study on validity and reliability of Psychiatric Diagnostic Screening Questionnaire, 30 which is a self-rated inventory meeting DSM-IV 35 diagnosis standards and can be utilized usefully, was also being conducted and it was expected to be a very useful scale in outpatient clinics considering the environment of Korean clinical field in which doctors should examine many patients for a short time. The perceived level of agreement between results of depression rating scales and those of subjective clinical interviews, the degree of satisfaction after using the scales were no significant difference between the two groups.
These responses reflected limitations of self-rated inventories well and many researchers had referred to them.
Like the result of survey, it was alike those of previous researches saying that children also showed depression including emotional, cognitive, motive, physical and psycho-motor symptoms like adults and specific clinical characteristics could be found according to ages. In conclusion, as the rate of use of depression rating scales of clinical psychologists was higher than that of psychiatrists, difference in roles of the two groups could be observed clearly.
In addition, currently used depression rating scales at the clinical field were not various. While agreement and satisfaction were found to be positive overall among the subjects of this study, subjects avoiding using them actually showed a negative response. The reasons for the negative evaluation were various clinical patterns according to gender and age, problems related to reliability and validity of the scales, specialty according to development stages, unfamiliarity and lack of information on them, and they reflected problems of existing scales.
This result is thought to exaggerate necessity of development of depression rating scales more, and development of scale handling with problems of existing scales and being useful for a limited environment of outpatient clinics where doctors should see many patients for a short time may urgent. However, some scales supplementing the limitations of existing scales mentioned above were already developed, verified and used for academic and clinical purposes.
Among them several ones' validity and reliability were also proven in Korea. Like this, the reason why they were already invented but were not widely used was considered to be lack of education and advertisement for them.
Rather than only trying to invent domestic rating scales, standardization of scales developed and verified in foreign countries also should be considered to secure variety and usefulness of depression rating scales. Lastly, this study had following limitations. This study recruited subjects only working at the clinical field. But, if subjects of this study had included ones with licenses not working at the field to reflect their opinion, a more accurate survey on current situation would have been possible because there may be a difference between kinds and purpose of use of scales demanding at nonclinical practice and clinical one.
In addition, the subjects were not various according to regions because a considerable data was lost in the process of sending and collecting questionnaires by mail and clinical psychologists in other regions except the region of researchers were hard to be recruited. That showed indirectly that there was deviation in distribution of them according to regions and their number was also limited. National Center for Biotechnology Information , U. Journal List Psychiatry Investig v. Psychiatry Investig. Published online Aug Find articles by Eun Jeong Lee.
Find articles by Jung Bum Kim. Find articles by Im Hee Shin. Find articles by Kyung Hee Lim. Find articles by Sang Hee Lee. Find articles by Gyung Ah Cho. Find articles by Hyung Mo Sung.