Advertisement

Der Einsatz von Videointerviews zur Optimierung der Reliabilität von Schweregradbeurteilungen für Angst, Depression und globale Beeinträchtigung

  • M. Hebenstreit
  • R. Buller

Zusammenfassung

Skalen zur Schweregradbeurteilung dienen in klinischen Studien (1) zur Feststellung des Vorhandenseins minimal notwendiger Symptome als Aufnahmekriterium für eine Therapiestudie, (2) zur Abbildung des Beschwerdeverlaufs, (3) zur Beurteilung der Wirksamkeit einer Behandlung (Bech et al. 1986; Maier et al. 1988b).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Andreasen NC, McDonald-Scott P, Grove WM, Keller MB, Shapiro RW, Hirschfeld RM A (1982) Assessment of reliability in multicenter collaborative research with a videotype approach. Am J Psychiatry 139 (7): 876–882PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartko JJ, Carpenter WT (1976) On the methods and theory of reliability. J Nerv Ment Dis 163: 307–317PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bech P, Haaber A, Joyce CRB (1986) Experiments on clinical observation and judgement in the assessment of depression: profiled videotapes and judgement analysis. Psychol Med 16: 873–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cicchetti DV, Prusoff BA (1983) Reliability of depression and associated clinical symptoms. Arch Gen Psychiatry 40: 987–990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Endicott J, Spitzer RL, Fleiss JL, Cohen J (1976) The global assessment scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry 33: 766–771PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fleiss JL (1986) The design and analysis of clinical experiments. Wiley & Sons, New York, Chichester, Brisbane, Toronto, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  7. Hamilton M (1960) A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 23: 56–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamilton M (1969) Diagnosis and rating of anxiety. Br J Psychiatry Special Publication 3: 76–79Google Scholar
  9. Hebenstreit M (1990) Reliabilitätsprobleme bei der Anwendung von Schweregradskalen in multizentrischen Studien. (In Vorbereitung)Google Scholar
  10. Lipman RS (1982) Differentiating anxiety and depression in anxiety disorders: use of rating scales. Psychopharmacol Bull 18: 69–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Maier W, Buller R, Philipp M, Heuser I (1988a) The Hamilton Anxiety Scale: reliability, validity and sensitivity to change in anxiety and depressive disorders. J Affect Disord 14: 61–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maier W, Philipp M, Heuser I, Schlegel S, Buller R, Wetzel H (1988b) Improving depression severity assessment. I. Reliability, internal validity and sensitivity to change of three observer depression scales. J Psychiatry Res 22: 3–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Raskin A, Schulterbrandt J, Reatig N et al. (1969) Replication of factors of psychopathology in interview, ward behavior and self-report ratings of hospitalized depressives. J Nerv Ment Dis 148: 87–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sheehan DV (1984) The relative efficacy of phenelzine, imipramine, alprazolam and placebo in the treatment of panic disorder. Vortrag anläßlich des „Annual Meeting” of the American Psychiatric Association, Los Angeles, Mai 5–11Google Scholar
  15. Williams JBW (1988) A structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry 45: 742–747PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Hebenstreit
  • R. Buller

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations