Evaluating Depressive Symptoms in Schizophrenia: A Psychometric Comparison of the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare two measures of depression in patients with schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorder, including patients with delusional and schizoaffective disorder, to conclude implications for their application. SAMPLING AND METHODS: A total of 278 patients were assessed using the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) was also applied. At admission and discharge, a principal component analysis was performed with each depression scale. The two depression rating scales were furthermore compared using correlation and regression analyses. RESULTS: Three factors were revealed for the CDSS and HAMD-17 factor component analysis. A very similar item loading was found for the CDSS at admission and discharge, whereas results of the loadings of the HAMD-17 items were less stable. The first two factors of the CDSS revealed correlations with positive, negative and general psychopathology. In contrast, multiple significant correlations were found for the HAMD-17 factors and the PANSS subscores. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated that the HAMD-17 accounted more for the positive and negative symptom domains than the CDSS. CONCLUSIONS: The present results suggest that compared to the HAMD-17, the CDSS is a more specific instrument to measure depressive symptoms in schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorder, especially in acutely ill patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".