Confronta i metodi
Esamina i metodi selezionati fianco a fianco; le righe che differiscono sono evidenziate.
| Scala di Valutazione della Depressione di Montgomery-Åsberg (MADRS)× | Scala di Valutazione della Depressione di Hamilton (HAM-D)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo | Psicologia clinica | Psicologia clinica |
| Famiglia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anno di origine≠ | 1979 | 1960 |
| Ideatore≠ | Stuart Montgomery & Marie Åsberg | Max Hamilton |
| Tipo | Clinician-rated interview scale | Clinician-rated interview scale |
| Fonte seminale≠ | Montgomery, S. A., & Åsberg, M. (1979). A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. British Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 382–389. DOI ↗ | Hamilton, M. (1960). A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 23(1), 56–62. DOI ↗ |
| Alias≠ | MADRS, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale | HAM-D, HDRS, Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression |
| Correlati | 5 | 5 |
| Sintesi≠ | The Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale is a 10-item clinician-rated assessment designed by Stuart Montgomery and Marie Åsberg in 1979 to measure depression severity and track treatment response. Published in the British Journal of Psychiatry, the MADRS was developed as an alternative to longer instruments like the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, emphasizing items most sensitive to treatment change. It has become a primary outcome measure in antidepressant trials and is widely used in both research and clinical practice across psychiatry, primary care, and medical specialty settings. | The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, published by Max Hamilton in 1960, is a clinician-administered interview assessment of depressive symptom severity. The most common version contains 17 items (HAM-D-17), though 21-item and 24-item versions exist. It is considered the gold standard outcome measure in antidepressant drug trials and remains the most cited depression rating scale in the psychiatric literature. Unlike self-report measures, HAM-D requires clinician judgment and observation, making it particularly valuable in research settings where standardized measurement by trained raters is essential. |
| ScholarGateInsieme di dati ↗ |
|
|