Article Navigation
Article Contents
-
Administration
-
Scoring and interpretation
-
Validity and performance
-
Availability
-
References
- < Previous
- Next >
Journal Article
Occupational Medicine, Volume 65, Issue 4, June 2015, Page 340, https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqv043
Published:
13 May 2015
- Split View
- Views
- Article contents
- Figures & tables
- Video
- Audio
- Supplementary Data
-
Cite
Cite
Rachel Sharp, The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, Occupational Medicine, Volume 65, Issue 4, June 2015, Page 340, https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqv043
Close
Search
Close
Search
Advanced Search
Search Menu
The Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (often abbreviated to HRSD, HDRS or Ham-D) was written in the late 1950s by Max Hamilton, a psychiatrist at Leeds University and originally designed to evaluate the performance of the first group of antidepressants [1]. The scale is still widely used to measure the effectiveness of antidepressant medication in clinical trials. For more than 40 years, it was considered to be the ‘gold standard’ but in the 1990s, its use began to be questioned [2].
Administration
The questionnaire is designed to be used by a health care professional during a clinical interview with an already identified depressed patient. Hamilton suggested that no specific questions needed to be asked during an unstructured interview in a health care setting. He indicated that the value of the questionnaire ‘depends entirely on the skill of the interviewer’ [1]. The interview should typ ically take between 15 and 20min and in practice this time taken may well limit its use outside a psychiatric clinical setting.
Scoring and interpretation
The scale is widely available and has two common versions with either 17 or 21 items and is scored between 0 and 4 points. The first 17 items measure the severity of depressive symptoms and as examples the interviewer rates the level of agitation clinically noted during the interview or how the mood is impacting on an individual’s work or leisure pursuits. The extra four items on the extended 21-point scale measure factors that might be related to depression, but are not thought to be measures of severity, such as paranoia or obsessional and compulsive symptoms. Scoring is based on the 17-item scale and scores of 0–7 are considered as being normal, 8–16 suggest mild depression, 17–23 moderate depression and scores over 24 are indicative of severe depression [3]; the maximum score being 52 on the 17-point scale.
Validity and performance
A major review of 70 studies suggested that the internal, inter-rater and retest reliability estimates are adequate for the global score but are weaker for individual items [2]. It has been suggested in studies that inter-rater reliability is affected by the level of training undertaken by the interviewer [4] and whether a structured interview guide is provided [5]. In comparison to the Beck Depression Inventory, a meta-analysis suggested that after therapeutic treatments, the HRSD was more ‘sensitive to change’ on retesting [6] and this is probably why it has been so widely used in clinical trials.
The Hamilton scale has been criticized for burying important features of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition (DSM-IV) diagnostic criteria such as feelings of worthlessness and anhedonia [2]. This is likely to be because it is more than 50 years old and designed before the DSM-IV criteria were established.
Availability
The Hamilton depression scale is widely available in the public domain and is not protected by copyright.
References
1.
Hamilton M
A rating scale for depression
.
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry
1960
;
23
:
56
–
62
.
2.
Bagby RM Ryder AG Schuller DR Marshall MB
The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale: has the gold standard become a lead weight?
Am J Psychiatry
2004
;
161
:
2163
–
2177
.
3.
Zimmerman M Martinez JH Young D Chelminski I Dalrymple K
Severity classification on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale
.
J Affect Disord
2013
;
150
:
384
–
388
.
4.
Hooijer C Zitman FG Griez E van Tilburg W Willemse A Dinkgreve MA
The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS); changes in scores as a function of training and version used
.
J Affect Disord
1991
;
22
:
21
–
29
.
5.
Moberg PJ Lazarus LW Mesholam RI
Comparison of the standard and structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale in depressed geriatric inpatients
.
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry
2001
;
9
:
35
–
40
.
6.
Edwards BC Lambert MJ Moran PW McCully T Smith KC Ellingson AG
A meta-analytic comparison of the Beck Depression Inventory and the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression as measures of treatment outcome
.
Br J Clin Psychol
1984
;
23
(
Pt 2
):
93
–
99
.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Occupational Medicine. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
Topic:
- hamilton rating scale for depression
Download all slides
Advertisem*nt
Citations
Views
138,568
Altmetric
More metrics information
Metrics
Total Views 138,568
127,685 Pageviews
10,883 PDF Downloads
Since 12/1/2016
Month: | Total Views: |
---|---|
December 2016 | 1 |
January 2017 | 44 |
February 2017 | 84 |
March 2017 | 93 |
April 2017 | 121 |
May 2017 | 109 |
June 2017 | 108 |
July 2017 | 119 |
August 2017 | 137 |
September 2017 | 292 |
October 2017 | 238 |
November 2017 | 289 |
December 2017 | 1,152 |
January 2018 | 6,784 |
February 2018 | 5,371 |
March 2018 | 2,658 |
April 2018 | 3,526 |
May 2018 | 2,615 |
June 2018 | 2,186 |
July 2018 | 2,001 |
August 2018 | 1,726 |
September 2018 | 1,727 |
October 2018 | 1,584 |
November 2018 | 1,902 |
December 2018 | 1,430 |
January 2019 | 1,632 |
February 2019 | 1,543 |
March 2019 | 1,778 |
April 2019 | 1,789 |
May 2019 | 1,596 |
June 2019 | 1,517 |
July 2019 | 1,561 |
August 2019 | 1,444 |
September 2019 | 1,870 |
October 2019 | 1,741 |
November 2019 | 2,003 |
December 2019 | 1,258 |
January 2020 | 1,815 |
February 2020 | 1,451 |
March 2020 | 1,325 |
April 2020 | 1,698 |
May 2020 | 837 |
June 2020 | 1,365 |
July 2020 | 1,219 |
August 2020 | 954 |
September 2020 | 1,198 |
October 2020 | 1,532 |
November 2020 | 2,129 |
December 2020 | 1,411 |
January 2021 | 1,460 |
February 2021 | 1,685 |
March 2021 | 1,939 |
April 2021 | 1,865 |
May 2021 | 1,438 |
June 2021 | 1,242 |
July 2021 | 1,311 |
August 2021 | 1,241 |
September 2021 | 1,476 |
October 2021 | 1,634 |
November 2021 | 1,686 |
December 2021 | 1,288 |
January 2022 | 1,160 |
February 2022 | 1,350 |
March 2022 | 1,633 |
April 2022 | 1,446 |
May 2022 | 1,449 |
June 2022 | 1,219 |
July 2022 | 1,121 |
August 2022 | 1,140 |
September 2022 | 1,340 |
October 2022 | 1,539 |
November 2022 | 1,710 |
December 2022 | 1,401 |
January 2023 | 1,280 |
February 2023 | 1,547 |
March 2023 | 1,824 |
April 2023 | 1,777 |
May 2023 | 1,763 |
June 2023 | 1,413 |
July 2023 | 1,525 |
August 2023 | 1,534 |
September 2023 | 1,624 |
October 2023 | 1,575 |
November 2023 | 1,896 |
December 2023 | 1,633 |
January 2024 | 2,047 |
February 2024 | 1,911 |
March 2024 | 2,479 |
April 2024 | 2,487 |
May 2024 | 2,098 |
June 2024 | 419 |
Email alerts
Article activity alert
Advance article alerts
New issue alert
Subject alert
Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic
Citing articles via
Google Scholar
-
Latest
-
Most Read
-
Most Cited
More from Oxford Academic
Medicine and Health
Occupational Medicine
Books
Journals
Advertisem*nt