Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T20:57:21.848Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rating antidepressant efficacy with naturalistic live versus structured videotaped interviews

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

E Corruble ,
V Sabran ,
C Payan ,
AJ Puech ,
J Fermanian  and
JD Guelfi
E Corruble
Affiliation:
Service de Psychiatrie - Groupe Hospitalier Paul Brousse, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Universitê Paris XI, 12-14 Avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier, 94804Villejuif cedex
V Sabran
Affiliation:
Service de Psychiatrie - Centre Hospitalier de Bicêtre, 94275Le-Kremlin-Bicêtre
C Payan
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Biostatistique et d'Informatique Médicale, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, 75743Paris cedex
AJ Puech
Affiliation:
Département de Pharmacologic, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, 47, Boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75013Paris cedex, France
J Fermanian
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Biostatistique et d'Informatique Médicale, Hôpital Necker-Enfants Malades, 75743Paris cedex
JD Guelfi
Affiliation:
Service de Psychiatrie - Groupe Hospitalier Paul Brousse, Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Universitê Paris XI, 12-14 Avenue Paul Vaillant Couturier, 94804Villejuif cedex
Get access

Summary

Two different methods were compared in the assessment of depressive symptomatology improvement: live naturalistic (N) performed by the patient's therapist, and from videotape record of structured clinical interview (VSI) assessed by an independent rater out of five psychiatrists.

Sixty-one newly admitted depressed inpatients, with a Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score above 20, were assessed before antidepressant treatment (DO), after 10 days (D10) and 4 weeks of treatment (D28). Assessments were based on the MADRS and the Depression Retardation Rating Scale (DRRS) for both N and VSI methods, and on the SCL-90-R for self-rating.

With the MADRS, the N method was shown to be more sensitive to symptomatology change than the VSI method, but the VSI method was more correlated to self-assessment than the N method was. However, these results were not replicated on the DRRS, for which an underscoring with the VSI method was evidenced as compared to the N method.

As shown in other studies, the poorest agreement between the two methods was evidenced at DO, suggesting a “novelty effect” particularly with the VSI method. This “novelty effect” may be all the more pronounced if a personality disorder is associated to depression. Consequently, information concerning each patient before rating videotapes is needed, as well as investigations in the field of depression and personality disorders.

The greater change observed in MADRS with the N method as compared to the VSI method, may be due non-specific factors related mostly to therapist expectations by comparison to neutral raters. This hypothesis should be tested in the placebo group of a double-blind study, and, if confirmed, the use of VSI methods, by minimising non-specific factors of improvement due to therapist expectations, may decrease the placebo response in antidepressant drug trials.

Keywords

video recordingsstandardised interviewsdepressionantidepressants
Type
Original article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 13 , Issue 5 , August 1998 , pp. 225 - 230
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier, Paris 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

revised American Psychiatric Association third editionDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 1987 APA Washington DCGoogle Scholar
Andreasen, NC, Grove, WM, Shapiro, RW, Keller, MB, Hirsch-feld, RMA, Mac Donald-Scott, PReliability of lifetime diagnosis Arch Gen Psychiatry 38 1981 400–405CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andreasen, NC, Mac Donald Scott, P, Grove, WM, Keller, MB, Shapiro, RW, Hirschfeld, RMAAssessment of reliability in multicenter collaborative research with a videotape approach Am J Psychiatry 139 1982 876–882Google ScholarPubMed
Ball, CJ, Mac Laren, PMComparability of face-to-face and videolink administration of the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale Am J Psychiatry 152 1995 958–959Google ScholarPubMed
Barnes, TRE, Trauer, TReliability and validity of a tardive dyskinesia videotape rating technique Br J Psychiatry 140 1982 508–515CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartels, M, Zeller, ETetrabenazine therapy of chronic spontaneous oral dyskinesia: a video and EMG-controlled study Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 234 1984 172–174CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartko, JJThe intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability Psychol Rep 19 1966 3–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bobon, DP, Mormont, C, Mirel, JA semistructured psychopathological interview conceived for the AMDP-3 scale and timeblind evaluation of videotapes Acta Psychiat Belg 78 1978 606–618Google Scholar
Cicchetti, DVAssessing interrater reliability for rating scales: resolving some basic issues Br J Psychiat 129 1976 452–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cicchetti, DV, Prusoff, BAReliability of depression and associated clinical symptoms Arch Gen Psychiatry 40 1983 987–990CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coryell, W, Winokur, G, Andreasen, NCEffect of case definition on affective disorders rates Am J Psychiatry 138 1981 1106–1109Google Scholar
Derogatis, LRSCL-90-R Version Manual I —Clinical Psychometrics Research Unit 1977 John Hopkins University School of Medicine BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
Dixon, WJBMDP Statistical Software Manual 1992 University of California Press, John Wiley and Sons, Ltd Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
Fermanian, JAssessment of agreement between two observers: quantitative case Rev Epidém Santé Publ 32 1984 408–413Google Scholar
Fisher, RAOn the probable error of a coefficient of correlation deduced from a small sample Metron 1 1921 3Google Scholar
Fleck, MPA, Guelfi, JD, Poirier-Littré, MF, Lôo, HApplication of a structured interview guide for four depression scales Encéphale XX 1994 479–486Google Scholar
Fuchs, A, Hehnke, U, Erhart, C, Schell, C, Pramshohler, B, Dan-ninger, B, Schautzer, FVideo Rating Analysis of effect of maprotiline in patients with dementia and depression Pharmacopsychiat 26 1993 37–41CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guelfi, JDL'évaluation clinique standardisée en psychiatrie, tome 1 1993 Éditions Médicales Pierre Fabre BoulogneGoogle Scholar
Hall, JReliability of ward rating scales Br J Psychiatry 125 1974 248–255CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, MA rating scale for depression J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 23 1960 56–62CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaselkis, CA, Cook, EH, Fletcher, KE, Leventhal, BLClonidine treatment of hyperactive and impulsive children with autistic disorder J Clin Psychophannacology 12 1992 322–327Google Scholar
Jouvent, R, Frechette, D, Binoux, F, Lancrenon, S, des Lauriers, ALe ralentissement psychomoteur dans les états dépressifs: construction d'une échelle d'évaluation quantitative Encéphale VI 1980 41–58Google Scholar
Katz, MM, Itil, TMVideo methodology for research in psychopathology and psychopharmacology Arch Gen Psychiatry 31 1974 204–210CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, JC, Mac Clelland, HA, Kerr, TAVideotape technique in assessing antidepressants Br J Clin Pharmacol 4 1977 227S–232SCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, S, Asberg, MA new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change Br J Psychiatry 134 1979 382–389CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renfordt, E, Busch, HTimeblind analysis of TV-stored interviews: an objective method to study antidepressive drugeffects Int Pharmacopsychiatry 11 1976 129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanchez, LE, Adams, PB, Uysal, S, Hallin, A, Campbell, M, Small, AMA comparison of live and videotape ratings: clomipramine and haloperidol in autism Psychopharmacol Bull 31 1995 371–378Google ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, RL, Endicott, J, Robins, EResearch Diagnostic Criteria: rationale and reliability Arch Gen Psychiatry 35 1978 773–782CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widlöcher, DPsychomotor retardation: clinical, theoretical and psychometric aspects Psychiatr Clin North Am 6 1983 27–40CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, JA structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale Arch Gen Psychiatry 45 1988 742–747CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wing, JK, Birley, JLT, Cooper, JE, Graham, P, Isaacs, ADReliability of a procedure for measuring and classifying “Present Psychiatric State” Br J Psychiatry 113 1967 499–515CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.