Rating scales in psychiatric disorders - why?

INTRODUCTION

A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by a clinically significant disturbance in an individual's thinking, emotion regulation, or behaviour that reflects a dysfunction of the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning and impairment in social, occupational, or other day-to-day activities.¹ Psychiatrists and mental health professionals use a wide variety of questionnaires, interviews, checklists, outcome assessments, and other tools to assess the plan of treatment, aid in the diagnosis, identify comorbidities and assess the level of functioning. It is challenging in the field of psychiatry, to classify the various mental disorder to assess the severity and quality of life, over the change of time. Rating is a term used to express an opinion or judgment regarding the performance of a person, object, situation, or character.

The rating scale can also serve as a basis for monitoring the progression of the disease over time or in response to specific interventions.² It could be three, five, or seven points. The most commonly used psychiatric rating scales fall into one or more of the following categories: making a diagnosis, measuring the severity and monitoring changes in specific symptoms, general functioning, quality of life, or overall outcome, and screening for diseases that may or may not be present. Rating scales are available in several formats. Some are checklists or observation guides that help clinicians achieve standardized assessments. Others were self-administered questionnaires or tests. Others are formal interviews, which can be fully structured (i.e., specifying the exact wording of the questions to be asked) or semi-structured (i.e., providing only specific wording and suggestions for further questions or analysis).

Typically, information is acquired from the patient, who knows the most about their own condition. For some instruments, some or all information may be obtained from an experienced informant. Other informants may be better if the construct involves limited understanding (e.g., cognitive impairment or mania) or significant social desirability (e.g., antisocial personality or substance abuse). Informants can also be helpful if the subject has a limited ability to remember or report symptoms (e.g., delirium, dementia, or any disorder in young children). Some rating scales also allow or require the inclusion of medical records or patient-monitoring information.

The rating scale helps the researcher quantify abstract concepts objectively, (such as attitudes, feelings, and). The measurement of scales is merely a way of approximating quantification/ranking. It is generally developed to make quantitative judgments regarding qualitative attributes. Here, we focused on rating scales for common psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, anxiety disorder, and stress-related disorders. This is the most commonly used tool for conducting structured observations. Some of the tools that have basic characteristics, such as clarity, relevance, variety, objectives, and uniqueness, are briefly discussed. It will cover the use of rating scales in clinical and research settings and future directions in the application of standardized rating scales. It should be noted that some scales are copyrighted instruments, and individuals using scales, especially for commercial purposes, should check for access and availability.

ASSESSMENT OF RATING SCALES

In clinical trials, rating scales are mandatory to ensure interpretable and potentially generalizable results, and are selected based on coverage of relevant constructs, cost (based on the nature of ratters, possible purchase price, and required training), duration, and time: management, comprehensibility for the target group, and the quality of the assessments given. In clinical practice, these factors are considered, as well as whether the scale provides more or better information than is available in standard clinical practice or whether it would facilitate the efficiency of obtaining information. Quality assessment is based on psychometric properties that measure the mind in both cases.

RELIABILITY

Reliability refers to the consistency or replicability of a rating, and is largely empirical. An instrument is likely to be more reliable if the instructions and questions are clearly and simply worded and the format is easy to understand and rate. There are three standard methods for assessing reliability: internal consistency, inter-tests, and test-retest.

Inter-rater and test-retest reliability

Inter-rater reliability (also called inter-rater or aggregation) is the agreement between two or more observers who rate items based on the same information. The estimates may vary depending on the assessment conditions. For example, inter-rater reliability estimates based on videotaped interviews tended to be higher than those based on single-rater interviews. Test-retest ratings measure reliability only to the extent that the true state of an item remains stable over time.

Issues in interpreting reliable data

When interpreting reliability data, it is important to remember that the reliability estimates published in the literature may not be generalizable to other objects. The factors to consider include the nature of the sample, training, and experience of the raters, and testing conditions. Questions related to the sample are critical. In particular, reliability tends to be higher in samples with high variability where individuals are easier to separate.

VALIDITY

Validity refers to conformity to the truth or a gold standard that can represent the truth. In a categorical context, this refers to whether an instrument can make correct classifications. In a continuous context, it refers to the accuracy or whether a given score can be said to represent the true state of nature. While reliability is an empirical issue, validity is partly theoretical; there is no absolute truth for many constructs measured in psychiatry. However, some metrics provide more useful and meaningful information than others do. Validity assessment is usually divided into face, content, criterion, and construct validity.

Face and content validity

Facial validity refers to whether subjects appear to value the construct in question. Although a rating scale may be intended to measure a construct of interest, an examination of the items may reveal that it embodies a very different concept. For example, an understanding scale may define understanding, either psychoanalytically or neurologically. However, items with a transparent relationship to the construct may be at a disadvantage when measuring socially undesirable characteristics such as drug addiction or abuse. Content validity is similar to face validity but describes whether a measure provides balanced coverage of a construct and focuses less on whether items convey the impression of validity. Content validity is often assessed using formal methods such as expert consensus or factor analysis.

Criterion validity

Criterion validity (sometimes called predictive or concurrent validity) refers to whether a measure is consistent with a gold standard or an accuracy criterion. Appropriate gold standards include the long form of an established instrument for a new, shorter version; a clinician-rated measure for a self-report form; and blood or urine tests for measuring substance abuse. The generally accepted gold standard for diagnostic interviews is the Longitudinal, Expert, All Data (LEAD) standard, which includes expert clinical judgment, longitudinal data, patient data, family history, and other data sources.

Construct validity

When an adequate gold standard is not available—often in the case of psychiatry—or when more standard data are desired, construct validity must be assessed. To achieve this, the measure can be compared with external validators, attributes that have a well-characterized relationship with the construct being studied, but are not directly measured by the instrument. External validators were used to validate psychiatric diagnostic criteria, and diagnostic tools designed to use them included the course of illness, family history, and response to therapy.

RATING SCALES IN SCHIZOPHRENIA

Schizophrenia and related psychotic disorders are considered severe, persistent brain diseases with high heterogeneity, and are characterized by changes during an individual's lifetime. However, progress has been made in our understanding of the aetiology of schizophrenia.³ Scales that measure positive and negative symptoms of schizophrenia are still the primary way doctors and researchers assess and diagnose schizophrenia. The scale is mainly used to monitor the severity of positive and negative symptoms and the response to treatment in patients with schizophrenia (Table 1).

BROAD-SPECTRUM SYMPTOM SEVERITY

These ratings typically cover a wide range of symptoms, allowing clinicians to obtain an overall severity index. These measures are broadly applicable and allow the assessment of treatment efficacy over time within subjects, provide comparative descriptions of symptom profiles, and serve many other purposes.

DOMAIN-SPECIFIC SCALES

Unlike general measures, these tools focus on a specific dimension of a given disorder, such as depression, negative symptoms, functional impairment, and quality of life. These procedures are usually used to screen for specific patient subtypes to help test or monitor the development of a complex pathology or area of dysfunction.

GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OF ILLNESS

These tools are either part of or modelled after the clinical global impression scale and are easy to use to describe clinical improvement or deterioration.

SIDE-EFFECT RATING SCALES

These measures were used to assess one or more side effects that may occur as a result of antipsychotic treatment. These include the measurement of motor and non-motor side effects, with a focus on extrapyramidal symptoms (Table 1).

RATING SCALES FOR DEPRESSION

Depression is a common mental disorder characterized by a depressed mood, loss of interest or pleasure, decreased energy, guilt, low self-esteem, sleep or appetite disturbances, and poor concentration. Symptoms of anxiety often accompany depression. If these problems persist for a long time, they can disrupt daily activities and social life. There are many rating scales for assessing depressive symptoms and screening for depressive syndromes. As with most psychiatric rating scales, their forms vary and include both self- and observer-rated instruments. Shorter scales are easier to control under normal practical conditions but may be less accurate. People with comorbid conditions can have depressive symptoms (such as apathy) without depression, although it is common for people with this condition to have both depression and significant illnesses. As with any rating scale, it is important to remember that standardized rating scales can never replace a thorough clinical interview (Table 2).¹⁶

Rating scales for anxiety disorders

Generalized anxiety disorder is characterized by constant, excessive, and unrealistic worries about everyday things. First, people go to the doctor not for anxiety but for sleep disorders, muscle tension, dyspepsia, restlessness, exhaustion, and irritability. Primary cognitive dysfunction, combined with secondary somatic anxiety, impairs work performance, interpersonal relationships, and leisure activities. GAD also increases the risk of subsequent depressive episodes, alcohol self-medication, and complications associated with comorbid somatic illnesses (Table 3).^35,36

RATING SCALES IN BIPOLAR DISORDER

Mood can be defined as a pervasive and continuous feeling or emotional tone that affects a person’s behaviour and colours their perception of being in the world. Mood disorders, sometimes called mood disorders, form an important category of psychiatric disorders that consists of major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder. Scales can be used to screen for bipolar disorder and measure the severity of symptoms. Bipolar disorder is always accompanied by manic and depressive symptoms and can also include problems with anxiety, sleep, and substance use. In particular, there are fewer rating scales for bipolar disorder than for other common psychiatric illnesses, such as depression, and bipolar patients are typically rated using a bipolar-specific instrument and a depressive symptom scale originally developed for patients with unipolar depression (Table 4).^45-47

OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is characterized by repeated intrusive impulses, thoughts or images that cause anxiety. "Compulsions" are defined as intrusive, repetitive, and disturbing thoughts, images, or impulses that a person tries to suppress or ignore. "Compulsions" are repetitive behaviours or mental rituals that an individual performs in an attempt to minimize the stress caused by obsessions.

YALE-BROWN OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE SCALE

Clinicians should begin the assessment of OCD using the YBOCS symptom checklist interview, a 64-item clinician-administered checklist that examines current and past obsessions and compulsions. The checklist helps clinicians to identify 36 different obsessions and 23 types of compulsions, covering the following types of symptoms: damage, contamination/washing, sexual, hoarding/saving, religious, symmetry/accuracy, somatic, and mixed. In addition, some symptoms of OC spectrum disorders (e.g., trichotillomania and hypochondriasis) are also present. Next, clinicians typically use a 10-point clinician-administered semi-structured severity scale to rate the severity of obsessions and compulsions.

This 10-point scale assesses the severity of obsessions and compulsions on a five-point scale from 0 (no symptoms) to 4 (very severe symptoms) in relation to the total scores of time spent, distraction, stress, resistance, and control between 0 and 40.

An YBOCS score equal to or greater than 16 is a cut-off score often used in therapeutic trials to identify a clinically symptomatic level of OCD. Additionally, scores of 0–7 represent subclinical OCD symptoms, 8–15 mild, 16–23 moderate, 24–31 severe, and 32–40 extreme symptoms. The YBOCS has become the gold standard in recent pharmacological and behavioural therapy studies because it can be used to measure severity, regardless of the type of obsession and compulsion.^56-58

SOCIAL ANXIETY DISORDER (SOCIAL PHOBIA)

Social anxiety disorder (also called social phobia) involves fear of social situations, including situations that involve scrutiny or contact with strangers.

The term social anxiety reflects a clear distinction between social anxiety disorder and a specific phobia, which is an intense and persistent fear of an object or situation.

LIEBOWITZ SOCIAL ANXIETY SCALE

The Liebowitz social anxiety scale (LSAS) is a widely used, clinician-administered 24-item interview that assesses fear and avoidance of certain social situations in individuals with social phobia. The LSAS contains two subscales: fear of social interaction (11 items) and efficacy (13 items). Symptom severity is rated on a four-point scale of fear from 0 (none) to 3 (severe) and avoidance on a four-point scale of 0 (never) to 3 (typically 67–100%) in last week.

THE SOCIAL PHOBIA AND ANXIETY INVENTORY

The social phobia and anxiety inventory (SPAI) is a 45-item self-report instrument that has been widely used to assess the cognitive, somatic, and behavioural dimensions of SAD.⁵⁹

SOCIAL PHOBIA SCALE AND SOCIAL INTERACTION ANXIETY SCALE

The Social Phobia Scale (SPS) and Social Interaction Anxiety Scale (SIAS) are two other widely used self-report measures of social anxiety.

SIAS measures cognitive, behavioural, and affective reactions to interaction situations.⁶⁰

POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and acute stress disorder are characterized by increased stress and anxiety after exposure to a traumatic or stressful event.

Traumatic or stressful events may include witnessing or participating in a violent accident or crime, military combat or abuse, kidnapping, natural disaster, diagnosis of a life-threatening illness, or systematic physical or sexual abuse. A person reacts to the experience with fear and helplessness, constantly relives the event and tries to avoid remembering it. The event can be re-experienced in dreams and waking thoughts (flashbacks).⁶¹

CLINICIAN-ADMINISTERED PTSD SCALE

One of the gold standard measures for assessing and diagnosing PTSD is the clinician-administered PTSD scale (CAPS), a structured interview that assesses symptoms of PTSD. PTSD symptoms are typically rated over the past month using a five-point Likert scale to rate frequency and intensity (e.g., 0 means the symptom does not occur or causes no distress, 4 means the symptom occurs almost every day or causes extreme distress and discomfort).

Total CAPS severity scores (CAPS sum) are calculated by summing the frequency and intensity values for each symptom (range 0-136). In addition, a PTSD syndrome score can be calculated by summing the frequency and intensity values for each cluster. 60. Although CAPS is a well-established and reliable measure, it takes time (about an hour) to administer. Thus, CAPS is not commonly used as a clinical measure.

IMPLICATIONS OF RATING SCALES IN CLINICAL TRIALS AND RESEARCH

The use of rating scales in clinical trials differs from clinical practice in several important ways; In particular, the focus is not on the therapeutic improvement of an individual patient, but on the objective assessment of improvement, with the aim of evaluating an intervention or a new medication. Study physicians should use a non-therapeutic study report, especially in placebo-controlled studies. This approach aims to minimize expectation biases, conditioning, and other factors that can confound the result and favour the placebo response.

Multiple confounding factors, high statistical variance, and low inter-rater reliability in psychiatry and neurology are particularly problematic, especially in multicenter studies. Various techniques are routinely used to assess the integrity and reliability of research data. One of the most important steps in achieving regulatory and scientific goals is inter-rater reliability training. Standardized practices for training and certification have been implemented and are now required prior to study data collection in all planned clinical trials.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

It will be easier to compare individuals or groups of individuals and evaluate the relative quality of care and results across care settings the more standardization that can be accomplished. Incorporation of Computer-based testing (CBT) in the clinical setting; to reduce human error and bias. Increasable accessibility of self-checking/self-report assessment for better awareness. To conduct high-quality research for the enhancement of the reliability and validity of existing tools and the development of new more sensitive tools. Given that many electronic health record systems allow individuals to check their records and track their clinical state or progress, future directions include a greater dependence on self-rated measures to empower healthcare consumers. The section on using rating scales in clinical trials makes mention of developing techniques for rater training that could lessen the placebo reaction and improve resource utilization. Another path for the future is the need to improve current rating scales or create new rating scales for the increasingly international context of clinical trials.

LIMITATIONS OF RATING SCALE

Lack of standardization, multi-culture, and multi-linguistic on clinical populations and sufficient training for interpreting and administering clinical scales. The training and Expertee required to select tools are the combinations of tools that most appropriately and taking capture psychopathology. The unavoidable confounding factor of practice effect when considering pre and post-assessment using the single tools. The lack of validity scales/ lie scales in many assessments reduced the overall reliability and validity of measure domains.

CONCLUSION

Outcome measurement and quality improvement in mental health care have lagged behind the rest of medicine but have recently gained attention from researchers and clinicians alike. Participating in outcome assessment is now in the interest of all psychiatrists and mental health therapists. Making the necessary changes to implement outcome assessment in clinical practice will certainly require significant effort and expense. However, being proactive and leading the way on these issues allows clinicians to help set measurement standards.

Funding: No funding sources

Conflict of interest: None declared

Ethical approval: Not required

REFERENCES

1. 1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Publishing. 2013.
2. 2. Sadock BJ, Sadock VA, Ruiz P. Kaplan & Sadock’s Synopsis of Psychiatry. Eleventh edition. Wolters Kluwer Private Limited New Delhi. 2018.
3. 3. Opler MG, Perrin MC, Kleinhaus K, Malaspina D. Factors in the Etiology of Schizophrenia: Genes, Parental Age, and Environment. Primary psychiatry. 2008;15(6).
4. 4. Flemenbaum A, Zimmermann RL. Inter-and intra-rater reliability of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. Psychol Rep. 1973;33(3):783-92.
5. 5. Kay SR, Fiszbein A, Opler LA. The positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) for schizophrenia. Schizophrenia bulletin. 1987;13(2):261-76.
6. 6. Haddock G, McCarron J, Tarrier N, Faragher EB. Scales to measure dimensions of hallucinations and delusions: the psychotic symptom rating scales (PSYRATS). Psychol Med. 1999;29(4):879-89.
7. 7. Haro JM, Kamath SA, Ochoa SO, Novick D, Rele K, Fargas A, et al. The Clinical Global Impression–Schizophrenia scale: a simple instrument to measure the diversity of symptoms present in schizophrenia. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2003;107:16-23.
8. 8. Andreasen NC. Scale for the assessment of positive symptoms. Psychiatrie & Psychobiologie. 1984.
9. 9. Andreasen NC. The Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS): conceptual and theoretical foundations. Br J Psychiatry. 1989;155(S7):49-52.
10. 10. Keefe RS, Poe M, Walker TM, Kang JW, Harvey PD. The Schizophrenia Cognition Rating Scale: an interview-based assessment and its relationship to cognition, real-world functioning, and functional capacity. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(3):426-32.
11. 11. Kumari S, Malik M, Florival C, Manalai P, Sonje S. An assessment of five (PANSS, SAPS, SANS, NSA-16, CGI-SCH) commonly used symptoms rating scales in schizophrenia and comparison to newer scales (CAINS, BNSS). J Addiction Res Therapy. 2017;8(3).
12. 12. Velligan DI, Alphs L, Lancaster S, Morlock R, Mintz J. Association between changes on the Negative Symptom Assessment scale (NSA-16) and measures of functional outcome in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2009;169(2):97-100.
13. 13. Karow A, Naber D. Subjective well-being and quality of life under atypical antipsychotic treatment. Psychopharmacology. 2002;162:3-10.
14. 14. Guy W, Ban TA, Wilson WH. The prevalence of abnormal involuntary movements among chronic schizophrenic. Int Clin Psychopharmacol. 1986;1(2):134-44.
15. 15. Marcus M, Yasamy MT, van Ommeren MV, Chisholm D, Saxena S. Depression: A global public health concern. American Psychological Association. 2012.
16. 16. Sajatovic M, Opler M, Junewicz A, Opler L. Rating Scales for Psychiatric Disorders. Med Basis Psychiatry. 2016;869-80.
17. 17. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1960;23(1):56.
18. 18. Frank E, Prien RF, Jarrett RB, Keller MB, Kupfer DJ, Lavori PW, et al. Conceptualization and rationale for consensus definitions of terms in major depressive disorder: remission, recovery, relapse, and recurrence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1991;48(9):851-5.
19. 19. Beck AT, Ward C, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh JJ. Beck depression inventory (BDI). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1961;4(6):561-71.
20. 20. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Beck depression inventory. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1987.
21. 21. Rush AJ, Giles DE, Schlesser MA, Fulton CL, Weissenburger J, Burns C. The inventory for depressive symptomatology (IDS): preliminary findings. Psychiatry Res. 1986;18(1):65-87.
22. 22. Rush AJ, Gullion CM, Basco MR, Jarrett RB, Trivedi MH. The inventory of depressive symptomatology (IDS): psychometric properties. Psychol Med. 1996;26(3):477-86.
23. 23. Montgomery SA, Åsberg MA. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134(4):382-9.
24. 24. Chamorro L, Luque A, Lobo A. Validation of the Spanish versions of the Montgomery-Asberg depression and Hamilton Anxiety rating scales. Medicina Clínica. 2002;118(13):493-9.
25. 25. Zung WW. A self-rating depression scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965;12(1):63-70.
26. 26. White J, White K, Razani J. Effects of endogenicity and severity on consistency of standard depression rating scales. J Clin Psychiatry. 1984;45(6):260-1.
27. 27. NIMH. Major Depressive Disorder Among Adults. Available at: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/1mdd_adult.shtml. Accessed on 13 October 2023.
28. 28. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ‐9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Int Med. 2001;16(9):606-13.
29. 29. Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Health and quality of life outcomes. 2003;1(1):1-4.
30. 30. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1983;67(6):361-70.
31. 31. Parkitny L, McAuley J. The depression anxiety stress scale (DASS). J Physiotherapy. 2010;56(3):204.
32. 32. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measurement. 1977;1(3):385-401.
33. 33. Weissman MM, Sholomskas D, Pottenger M, Prusoff BA, Locke BZ. Assessing depressive symptoms in five psychiatric populations: a validation study. Am J Epidemiol. 1977;106(3):203-14.
34. 34. Meyer TJ, Miller ML, Metzger RL, Borkovec TD. Development and validation of the penn state worry questionnaire. Behav Res Therapy. 1990;28(6):487-95.
35. 35. Stein DJ. Comorbidity in generalized anxiety disorder: impact and implications. J Clin Psychiatry. 2001;62:29-36.
36. 36. Allgulander C. Generalized anxiety disorder: a review of recent findings. J Exp Clin Med. 2012;4(2):88-91.
37. 37. Beck AT, Epstein N, Brown G, Steer RA. An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: psychometric properties. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1988;56(6):893-7.
38. 38. Steer RA, Rissmiller DJ, Beck AT. Use of the Beck Depression Inventory-II with depressed geriatric inpatients. Behav Res Therapy. 2000;38(3):311-8.
39. 39. Hamilton M. Diagnosis and rating of anxiety. Br J Psychiatry. 1969;3:76-9.
40. 40. Hamilton M. The assessment of anxiety states by rating. Br J Med Psychol. 1959;32:50-5.
41. 41. Reiss S, Peterson RA, Gursky DM, McNally RJ. Anxiety sensitivity, anxiety frequency and the prediction of fearfulness. Behav Res Therapy. 1986;24(1):1-8.
42. 42. Peterson RA, Reiss S. Anxiety sensitivity index revised test manual. IDS Publications. 1993.
43. 43. Liebowitz MR. Social phobia. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry. 1987;22:141-73.
44. 44. Shahid A, Wilkinson K, Marcu S, Shapiro CM, editors. STOP, THAT and one hundred other sleep scales. Springer Science & Business Media. 2012.
45. 45. Picardi A. Rating scales in bipolar disorder. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2009;22(1):42-9.
46. 46. Rush Jr AJ, First MB, Blacker D, editors. Handbook of psychiatric measures. American Psychiatric Pub. 2009.
47. 47. Tohen M, Bowden C, Nierenberg AA, Geddes J, editors. Clinical trial design challenges in mood disorders. Academic Press. 2015.
48. 48. Young RC, Biggs JT, Ziegler VE, Meyer DA. A rating scale for mania: reliability, validity and sensitivity. Br J Psychiatry. 1978;133(5):429-35.
49. 49. Endicott J, Spitzer RL. A diagnostic interview: the schedule for affective disorders and schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1978;35(7):837-44.
50. 50. Berk M, Malhi GS, Cahill C, Carman AC, Hadzi‐Pavlovic D, Hawkins MT, et al. The Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS): its development, validation and utility. Bipolar Disorders. 2007;9(6):571-9.
51. 51. Berk M, Malhi GS, Mitchell PB, Cahill CM, Carman AC, Hadzi‐Pavlovic D, et al. Scale matters: the need for a Bipolar Depression Rating Scale (BDRS). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2004;110:39-45.
52. 52. Hirschfeld RM. The Mood Disorder Questionnaire: A Simple, Patient-Rated Screening Instrument for Bipolar Disorder. Prim Care Companion J Clin Psychiatry. 2002;4(1):9-11.
53. 53. Gonzalez JM, Bowden CL, Katz MM, Thompson P, Singh V, Prihoda TJ, et al. Development of the Bipolar Inventory of Symptoms Scale: concurrent validity, discriminant validity and retest reliability. Int J Methods Psychiatric Res. 2008;17(4):198-209.
54. 54. Thompson PM, Gonzalez JM, Singh V, Schoolfield JD, Katz MM, Bowden CL. Principal domains of behavioral psychopathology identified by the Bipolar Inventory of Signs and Symptoms Scale (BISS). Psychiatry Res. 2010;175(3):221-6.
55. 55. Ghaemi SN, Miller CJ, Berv DA, Klugman J, Rosenquist KJ, Pies RW. Sensitivity and specificity of a new bipolar spectrum diagnostic scale. J Affective Disord. 2005;84(2-3):273-7.
56. 56. Goodman WK, Price LH, Rasmussen SA, Mazure C, Delgado P, Heninger GR, et al. The Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale. II. Validity. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1989;46(11):1012-6.
57. 57. Goodman WK, Price LH, Rasmussen SA, Mazure C, Fleischmann RL, Hill CL, et al. The Yale-Brown obsessive compulsive scale: I. Development, use, and reliability. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1989;46(11):1006-11.
58. 58. Tolin DF, Abramowitz JS, Diefenbach GJ. Defining response in clinical trials for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a signal detection analysis of the Yale-Brown obsessive compulsive scale. J Clin Psychiatry. 2005;66(12):1549-57.
59. 59. Turner SM, Beidel DC, Dancu CV, Stanley MA. An empirically derived inventory to measure social fears and anxiety: the Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory. Psychol Assessment J Consult Clin Psychol. 1989;1(1):35.
60. 60. Mattick RP, Clarke JC. Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behav Res Therapy. 1998;36(4):455-70.
61. 61. Blake DD, Weathers FW, Nagy LM, Kaloupek DG, Gusman FD, Charney DS, et al. The development of a Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale. J Trauma Stress. 1995;8(1):75-90.