Methoden vergelijken
Bekijk de geselecteerde methoden naast elkaar; rijen die verschillen zijn gemarkeerd.
| Montgomery-Åsberg Depressie Rating Schaal (MADRS)× | Clinical Global Impressions Scale (CGI)× | |
|---|---|---|
| Vakgebied | Klinische psychologie | Klinische psychologie |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Jaar van ontstaan≠ | 1979 | 1976 |
| Grondlegger≠ | Stuart Montgomery & Marie Åsberg | William Guy |
| Type≠ | Clinician-rated interview scale | Clinician-rated assessment |
| Oorspronkelijke bron≠ | Montgomery, S. A., & Åsberg, M. (1979). A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. British Journal of Psychiatry, 134, 382–389. DOI ↗ | Guy, W. (1976). ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health, US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. link ↗ |
| Aliassen≠ | MADRS, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale | CGI, CGI-S, CGI-I |
| Verwant≠ | 5 | 4 |
| Samenvatting≠ | 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 Clinical Global Impressions Scale is a clinician-administered two-part assessment developed by William Guy in the ECDEU Assessment Manual (1976) to provide rapid, global ratings of illness severity and treatment response. Part 1 (CGI-Severity) rates current severity; Part 2 (CGI-Improvement) rates change since treatment initiation. The CGI is among the most widely used global outcome measures in psychiatric research and clinical practice, prized for its brevity, interpretability, and ability to capture clinician expertise and nuanced clinical judgment. |
| ScholarGateGegevensset ↗ |
|
|