The bi-factor structure of the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in persistent major depression; dimensional measurement of outcome

Neil Nixon, Boliang Guo, Anne Garland, Catherine Kaylor-Hughes, Elena Nixon, Richard Morriss, Neil Nixon, Boliang Guo, Anne Garland, Catherine Kaylor-Hughes, Elena Nixon, Richard Morriss

Abstract

Background: The 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS17) is used world-wide as an observer-rated measure of depression in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) despite continued uncertainty regarding its factor structure. This study investigated the dimensionality of HDRS17 for patients undergoing treatment in UK mental health settings with moderate to severe persistent major depressive disorder (PMDD).

Methods: Exploratory Structural Equational Modelling (ESEM) was performed to examine the HDRS17 factor structure for adult PMDD patients with HDRS17 score ≥16. Participants (n = 187) were drawn from a multicentre RCT conducted in UK community mental health settings evaluating the outcomes of a depression service comprising CBT and psychopharmacology within a collaborative care model, against treatment as usual (TAU). The construct stability across a 12-month follow-up was examined through a measurement equivalence/invariance (ME/I) procedure via ESEM.

Results: ESEM showed HDRS17 had a bi-factor structure for PMDD patients (baseline mean (sd) HDRS17 22.6 (5.2); 87% PMDD >1 year) with an overall depression factor and two group factors: vegetative-worry and retardation-agitation, further complicated by negative item loading. This bi-factor structure was stable over 12 months follow up. Analysis of the HDRS6 showed it had a unidimensional structure, with positive item loading also stable over 12 months.

Conclusions: In this cohort of moderate-severe PMDD the HDRS17 had a bi-factor structure stable across 12 months with negative item loading on domain specific factors, indicating that it may be more appropriate to multidimensional assessment of settled clinical states, with shorter unidimensional subscales such as the HDRS6 used as measures of change.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Schematic example of 2 nd…
Fig 1. Schematic example of 2nd order factor and bi-factor model: G = general factor, F = group factor.

References

    1. Rush AJ. STAR*D: what have we learned? Am J Psychiatry. 2007;164:201–4. 10.1176/ajp.2007.164.2.201
    1. Hamilton M. A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. 1960;23(1):56–62. 10.1136/jnnp.23.1.56
    1. Salagre E, Fernandes BS, Dodd S, Brownstein DJ, Berk M. Statins for the treatment of depression: A meta-analysis of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2016;200(Supplement C):235–42. 10.1016/j.jad.2016.04.047.
    1. Zimmerman M, Posternak MA, Chelminski I. Is It time to replace the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale as the primary outcome measure in treatment studies of depression? Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2005;25(2):105–10. 10.1097/01.jcp.0000155824.59585.46 00004714-200504000-00001.
    1. Williams JBW, Kobak KA, Bech P, Engelhardt N, Evans K, Lipsitz J, et al. The GRID-HAMD: standardization of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. International Clinical Psychopharmacology. 2008;23(3):120–9. 10.1097/YIC.0b013e3282f948f5 00004850-200805000-00002.
    1. Vaccarino AL, Evans KR, Kalali AH, Kennedy SH, Engelhardt N, Frey BN, et al. The Depression Inventory Development Workgroup: A Collaborative, Empirically Driven Initiative to Develop a New Assessment Tool for Major Depressive Disorder. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience. 2016;13(9–10):20–31. PMC5141593.
    1. Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims, (2009).
    1. NICE. National Clinical Practice Guideline 90: The Treatment and Management of Depression in Adults (updated version). In: Excellence NIfHC, editor. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, London E1 8AA: The British Psychological Society & The Royal College of Psychiatrists; 2010.
    1. Fried EI, van Borkulo CD, Epskamp S, Schoevers RA, Tuerlinckx F, Borsboom D. Measuring depression over time… Or not? Lack of unidimensionality and longitudinal measurement invariance in four common rating scales of depression. Psychological Assessment. 2016;28(11):1354–67. 10.1037/pas0000275
    1. Bech P, Csillag C, Hellström L, Fleck MPdA. The time has come to stop rotations for the identification of structures in the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D17). Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria. 2013;35:360–3. 10.1590/1516-4446-2013-1116
    1. Olden M, Rosenfeld B, Pessin H, Breitbart W. Measuring depression at the end of life. Assessment. 2009;16(1):43–54. 10.1177/1073191108320415 .
    1. Moritz S, Meier B, Hand I, Schick M, Jahn H. Dimensional structure of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in patients with obsessive–compulsive disorder. Psychiatry Research. 2004;125(2):171–80. 10.1016/j.psychres.2003.11.003
    1. Cole JC, Motivala SJ, Dang J, Lucko A, Lang N, Levin MJ, et al. Structural validation of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2004;26(4):241–54. 10.1023/b:joba.0000045340.38371.04
    1. Dunlop BW, Cole SP, Nemeroff CB, Mayberg HS, Craighead WE. Differential change on depressive symptom factors with antidepressant medication and cognitive behavior therapy for major depressive disorder. Journal of affective disorders. 2018;229:111–9. Epub 2017/12/27. 10.1016/j.jad.2017.12.035 .
    1. Guo B, Kaylor-Hughes C, Garland A, Nixon N, Sweeney T, Simpson S, et al. Factor structure and longitudinal measurement invariance of PHQ-9 for specialist mental health care patients with persistent major depressive disorder: Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling. Journal of affective disorders. 2017;219:1–8. 10.1016/j.jad.2017.05.020
    1. Rush AJ, Wisniewski SR, Zisook S, Fava M, Sung SC, Haley CL, et al. Is prior course of illness relevant to acute or longer-term outcomes in depressed out-patients? A STAR*D report. Psychological Medicine. 2012;.42(6):1131–49. 10.1017/S0033291711002170 2012-11782-002.
    1. Bennabi D, Aouizerate B, El-Hage W, Doumy O, Moliere F, Courtet P, et al. Risk factors for treatment resistance in unipolar depression: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2015;171(0):137–41. 10.1016/j.jad.2014.09.020
    1. Morriss R, Garland A, Nixon N, Guo B, James M, Kaylor-Hughes C, et al. Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a specialist depression service versus usual specialist mental health care to manage persistent depression: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2016;3(9):821–31. 10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30143-2
    1. Arens AK, Morin AJS. Improved representation of the self-perception profile for children through bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. American Educational Research Journal. 2017;54(1):59–87. 10.3102/0002831216666490
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The PHQ-9: the validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2001;16:606–13. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
    1. Asparouhov T, Muthén B. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2009;16(3):397–438. 10.1080/10705510903008204
    1. Marsh HW, Morin AJS, Parker PD, Kaur G. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2014;10(1):85–110. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700 .
    1. Morin AJS, Arens AK, Marsh HW. A Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2016;23(1):116–39. 10.1080/10705511.2014.961800
    1. Guay F, Morin AJS, Litalien D, Valois P, Vallerand RJ. Application of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling to evaluate the Academic Motivation Scale. The Journal of Experimental Education. 2015;83(1):51–82. 10.1080/00220973.2013.876231
    1. Morin AJS, Arens AK, Tran A, Caci H. Exploring sources of construct-relevant multidimensionality in psychiatric measurement: A tutorial and illustration using the Composite Scale of Morningness. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2016;25(4):277–88. 10.1002/mpr.1485
    1. Chen FF, West SG, Sousa K. A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 2006;41:189–255. 10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5
    1. Reise SP, Moore TM, Haviland MG. Bifactor models and rotations: Exploring the extent to which multidimensional data yield univocal scale scores. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2010;92(6):544–59. 10.1080/00223891.2010.496477
    1. Patrick CJ, Hicks BM, Nichol PE, Krueger RF. A Bi-factor approach to modelling the structure of the psychopathy checklist-revised. Journal of Personality Disorders. 2007;21(2):118–41. 10.1521/pedi.2007.21.2.118 PMC2242629.
    1. Simms LJ, Grös DF, Watson D, O'Hara MW. Parsing the general and specific components of depression and anxiety with bifactor modeling. Depression and Anxiety. 2008;25(7):E34–E46. 10.1002/da.20432
    1. NICE. Depression in adults: treatment and management (update). In: NICE, editor. online: National Guideline Alliance; 2020.
    1. First MB, Gibbon M. User's Guide for the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders: SCID-II American Psychiatric Pub; 1997.
    1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th ed Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association; 1994.
    1. Morriss R, Marttunnen S, Garland A, Nixon N, McDonald R, Sweeney T, et al. Randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost effectiveness of a specialist team for managing refractory unipolar depressive disorder. BMC Psychiatry. 2010;10(1):100 10.1186/1471-244X-10-100 10.1186/1471-244X-10-100
    1. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods. 2000;3:4–70. 10.1177/109442810031002 10.1177/109442810031002
    1. Graham JW. Adding missing-data relevant variables to FIML-based structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2003;10:80–100. 10.1207/S15328007SEM1001_4
    1. Enders CK, Bandalos DL. The relative performance of Full Information Maximum Likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2001;8(3):430–57. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5
    1. Muthén BO, Muthén LK. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles, CA 90066: Muthén & Muthén; 2017. 2017.
    1. Wen Z, Hau KT, Marsh HW. Structural equation model testing: Cutoff criteria for goodness of fit indices and chi-square test. Acta Psychologica Sinica. 2004;36(2):186–94.
    1. Marsh HW, Lüdtke O, Muthén B, Asparouhov T, Morin AJS, Trautwein U, et al. A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment. 2010;22(3):471–91. 10.1037/a0019227
    1. Marsh HW, Muthén B, Asparouhov T, Lüdtke O, Robitzsch A, Morin AJS, et al. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students' evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2009;16(3):439–76. 10.1080/10705510903008220
    1. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2002;9:233–55. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
    1. Bech P, Allerup P, Gram LF, Reisby N, Rosenberg R, Jacobsen O, et al. The Hamilton Depression Scale: Evaluation of objectivity using logistic models. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1981;63(3):290–9. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1981.tb00676.x
    1. Licht RW, Qvitzau S, Allerup P, Bech P. Validation of the Bech-Rafaelsen Melancholia Scale and the Hamilton Depression Scale in patients with major depression: is the total score a valid measure of illness severity? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2005;111(2):144–9. 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2004.00440.x .
    1. Gibbons RD, Clark DC, Kupfer DJ. Exactly what does the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale measure? Journal of Psychiatric Research. 1993;27(3):259–73. Epub 1993/07/01. 10.1016/0022-3956(93)90037-3 .
    1. Bech P. Rating scales in depression: Limitations and pitfalls. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience. 2006;8(2):207–15. .
    1. Coplan JD, Aaronson CJ, Panthangi V, Kim Y. Treating comorbid anxiety and depression: Psychosocial and pharmacological approaches. World journal of psychiatry. 2015;5(4):366–78. 10.5498/wjp.v5.i4.366 .
    1. Wiersma JE, van Oppen P, van Schaik DJ, van der Does AJ, Beekman AT, Penninx BW. Psychological characteristics of chronic depression: a longitudinal cohort study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2011;72(3):288–94. 10.4088/JCP.09m05735blu .
    1. Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. International Journal of Testing. 2005;5(2):159–68. 10.1207/s15327574ijt0502_4

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren