↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Validity and test–retest reliability of the Persian version of the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale

Overview of attention for article published in Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Validity and test–retest reliability of the Persian version of the Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale
Published in
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, March 2016
DOI 10.2147/ndt.s103869
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mohammad Ahmadpanah, Meisam Sheikhbabaei, Mohammad Haghighi, Fatemeh Roham, Leila Jahangard, Amineh Akhondi, Dena Sadeghi Bahmani, Hafez Bajoghli, Edith Holsboer-Trachsler, Serge Brand

Abstract

The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) is an expert's rating tool to assess the severity and symptoms of depression. The aim of the present two studies was to validate the Persian version of the MADRS and determine its test-retest reliability in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorders (MDD). In study 1, the translated MADRS and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) were applied to 210 patients diagnosed with MDD and 100 healthy adults. In study 2, 200 patients diagnosed with MDD were assessed with the MADRS in face-to-face interviews. Thereafter, 100 patients were assessed 3-14 days later, again via face-to-face-interviews, while the other 100 patients were assessed 3-14 days later via a telephone interview. Study 1: The MADRS and HDRS scores between patients with MDD and healthy controls differed significantly. Agreement between scoring of the MADRS and HDRS was high (r=0.95). Study 2: The intraclass correlation coefficient (test-retest reliability) was r=0.944 for the face-to-face interviews, and r=0.959 for the telephone interviews. The present data suggest that the Persian MADRS has high validity and excellent test-retest reliability over a time interval of 3-14 days, irrespective of whether the second assessment was carried out face-to-face or via a telephone interview.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 16%
Researcher 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 4 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 16%
Neuroscience 3 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Sports and Recreations 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2016.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,719
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#179,681
of 312,604 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#67
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,604 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.