Psychometric approach in psychiatry: excess or necessity?

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

Psychometric approach is historically associated with the formation of psychiatry as a science. Psychometric scales have been used repeatedly to form classifications of mental disorders. Currently, effectiveness of psychometric approach in psychiatry has received evidence-based confirmation in a number of international projects on the pharmacotherapy of depression. A new direction has emerged, called “measurement-based care”. It has been proven that the use of psychometric scales by 25–45% increases the efficiency of diagnostic assessment in psychiatry, improves the interaction between doctor and patient, and improves the organization of psychiatric care. At the same time, a significant number of practicing psychiatrists do not use psychometric scales due to time costs, low validity and difficulties in interpretation. In this regard, modern psychiatry is in dire need of introduction of new psychometric technologies, allowing in a short time to develop economic, valid and accurate psychometric instruments.

About the authors

Marat A. Assanovich

Grodno State Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: 70malas@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-9893-2559

Доктор медицинских наук, доцент, заведующий кафедрой медицинской психологии и психотерапии

Belarus, 230009, Grodno, Gorkogo str., 80

References

  1. Bech P. Clinical psychometrics. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. 2012; 202 p.
  2. Бобров А.Е. Методологические вопросы диагностики психических расстройств и современные программы подготовки специалистов в психиатрии. Соц. и клин. психиатрия. 2014; 2: 50–54. [Bobrov A.E. Metodologicheskie voprosy diagnostiki psihicheskih rasstrojstv i sovremennye programmy podgotovki specialistov v psihiatrii. Soc. i klin. psihiatriya. 2014; 2: 50–54. (In Russ.)]
  3. Kawa S., Giordano J. A brief historicity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: issues and implications for the future of psychiatric canon and practice. Philos. Ethics Humanit. Med. 2012; 7 (2): 1–9. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-7-2.
  4. Spitzer R.L., Endicott J., Robins E. Research diagnostic criteria. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 1978; 35: 773–782. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.1978.01770300115013.
  5. Decker H.S. How Kraepelinian was Kraepelin? How Kraepelinian are the neo-Kraepelinians? — From Emil Kraepelin to DSM-III. Hist. Psychiatry. 2007; 18 (71): 337–360. doi: 10.1177/0957154X07078976.
  6. Garland A.F., Kruse M., Aarons G. et al. Clinicians and outcome measurement: What’s the use? J. Behav. Health Serv. Res. 2003; 30 (4): 393–405. doi: 10.1007/BF02287427.
  7. Schulte-van Maaren Y.W.M., Carlier I.V.E., Zitman F.G. et al. Reference values for major depression questionnaires. J. Affect. Disord. 2013; 149 (1–3): 342–349. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.02.009.
  8. Lewis C.C., Scott K., Marti C.N. et al. Implementing measurement-based care (iMBC) for depression in community mental health. Implement. Sci. 2015; 10: 127. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0313-2.
  9. Scott K., Lewis C.C. Using Measurement-Based Care to enhance any treatment. Cogn. Behav. Pract. 2015; 22 (1): 49–59. doi: 10.1016/j.cbpra.2014.01.010.
  10. Trivedi M.H., Rush J.A., Wisniewski S.R. Evaluation of outcomes with citalopram for depression using measurement-based care in STAR*D: implications for clinical practice. Am. J. Psychiatry. 2006; 163 (1): 28–40. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.163.1.28.
  11. Trivedi M.H., Rush J.A., Ibrahim H.M. et al. The Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating (IDS-C) and Self-Report (IDS-SR), and the Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, Clinician Rating (QIDS-C) and Self-Report (QIDS-SR) in public sector patients with mood. Psychol. Med. 2004; 34 (1): 73–82. doi: 10.1017/s0033291703001107.
  12. Trivedi M.H. Measurement-based care for refractory depression. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007; 88 (2): 61–71. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.01.007.
  13. Rush A.J. STAR*D: What have we learned? Am. J. Psychiatry. 2007; 164 (2): 201–204.
  14. Valenstein M., Adler D.A., Berlant J. et al. Implementing standardized assessments in clinical care: now’s the time. Psychiatr. Serv. 2009; 60 (10): 1372–1375. doi: 10.1176/ps.2009.60.10.1372.
  15. Eisen S.V., Ranganathan G., Seal P. et al. Measuring clinically meaningful change following mental health treatment. J. Behav. Health Serv. Res. 2007; 34 (3): 272–289. doi: 10.1007/s11414-007-9066-2.
  16. Kessler R., Glasgow R.E. A proposal to speed translation of healthcare research into practice. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2011; 40 (6): 637–644. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2011.02.023.
  17. Dowrick C., Leydon G.M., McBride A. et al. Patients’ and doctors’ views on depression severity questionnaires incentivised in UK quality and outcomes framework. BMJ. 2009; 338: 663. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b663.
  18. Østergaard S.D. Do not blame the SSRIs: blame the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Acta. Neuropsychiatr. 2017; 30 (5); 1–3. doi: 10.1017/neu.2017.6.
  19. Bondolfi G., Jermann F., Rouget B.W. et al. Self- and clinician-rated Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale. J. Affect. Disord. 2010; 121 (3): 268–272. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2009.06.037.
  20. Bagby R.M., Ryder A.G., Schuller D.R. et al. The Hamilton depression rating scale. Am. J. Psychiatry. 2004; 161 (12): 2163–2177. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2163.
  21. Bech P. An overview of which health domains to consider and when to apply them in measurement-based care for depression and anxiety disorders. Nord. J. Psychiatry. 2018; 72 (5): 1–7. doi: 10.1080/08039488.2018.1465592.
  22. Prinsen C.A.C., Mokkink L.B., Bouter L.M. et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual. Life Res. 2018; 27 (5): 1147–1157. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3.
  23. Mokkink L.B., Prinsen C.A.C., Bouter L.M. et al. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz. J. Phys. Ther. 2016; 20 (2): 105–113. doi: 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0143.
  24. Krabbe P. The measurement of health and health status. Elsevier. 2017; 380 p.
  25. Vet H.C.W., Terwee C.B., Mokkink L.B. et al. Measurement in medicine. Cambridge Univ. Press. 2011; 350 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511996214.
  26. Bossuyt P.M., Reitisma J.B., Bruns D.E. et al. The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Clin. Chem. 2003; 49 (1): 7–18. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1.
  27. Ochodo E.A., Bossuyt P.M. Reporting the accuracy of diagnostic tests. Clin. Chem. 2013; 59 (6): 917–919. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2013.206516.
  28. Bossuyt P.M., Reitisma J.B., Bruns D.E. et al. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. BMJ. 2005; 326: 41–44. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.41.

Copyright (c) 2021 Assanovich M.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies