Standardized clinical outcome rating scale for depression for use in clinical practice

The integration of research into clinical practice to conduct effectiveness studies faces multiple obstacles. One obstacle is the burden of completing research measures of outcome. A simple, reliable, and valid measure that could be rated at every visit, incorporated into a clinician's progress note, and reflect the DSM-IV definition of a major depressive episode (including partial and full remission from the episode) would enhance the ability to conduct effectiveness research. The goal of the present study was to examine the reliability and validity of such a measure. Three hundred and three psychiatric outpatients who were being treated for a DSM-IV major depressive episode were rated on the Standardized Clinical Outcome Rating for Depression (SCOR-D), 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale, and the Global Assessment of Functioning. We examined the correlation between the SCOR-D and the other measures, and conducted an analyses of variance to compare mean values on these measures for each rating point on the SCOR-D. The inter-rater reliability of the SCOR-D dimensional ratings and categorical determination of remission were high. The SCOR-D was highly correlated with the other scales, and there were significant differences on the other measures of depression severity between each adjacent rating level of the SCOR-D. The SCOR-D is a brief standardized outcome measure linked to the DSM-IV approach toward defining remission that can be incorporated into routine clinical practice without adding undue burden to the treating clinician with some evidence of reliability and validity. This measure could make it more feasible to conduct effectiveness studies in clinical practice.