A comparison of the 'Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression' and the 'Montgomery-Asberg Depression rating Scale'

Although the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) is the most frequently used rating scale for quantifying depressive states, it has been criticized for its reliability and its usability in clinical practice. This criticism is less applying to the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS). Goal of the present study is to investigate the reliability and validity, and clinical relationship between the HRSD and the MADRS. For 60 out-patients with diagnosed depression (DSM IV296.2x, 296.3x, 300.40 and 311.00), the HRSD and MADRS were scored at baseline and 6 weeks later by an independent rater according to a structured interview. Also the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) was assessed by a psychiatrist. Satisfying agreement was found between the totalscores (r= .75, p>.000 en r=.92, p>.000 respectively, at baseline and 6 weeks later). Furthermore agreement was found between the items of both scales, and these agree with the clinical impression. The reliability of the MADRS is more stable than the reliability of the HRSD (α = .6367 and α =.8900 vs α = .2193 and α = .8362 at baseline and at endpoint respectively). Considering the ease of scoring both scales in one interview and the widely international use of the HRSD, scoring both the HRSD and the MADRS to measure the severity of a depression seems to be an acceptabel covenant.