Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology

, Volume 40, Issue 3, pp 209–213

The Major Depression Inventory versus Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry in a population sample




This study examined the association between the Major Depression Inventory (MDI) and the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN).


A questionnaire including the MDI was sent out to an adult population and was completed by a total of 10448 persons. Psychiatrists used SCAN and interviewed a subsample (n=1093).


The specificity of the MDI was 0.22, the sensitivity 0.67 and Kappa 0.25 when Major Depression according to SCAN was considered as the index of validity, and with all depressive disorders the specificity was 0.44, the sensitivity 0.51 and Kappa 0.33. Higher educated persons and those with reported disability were less likely to be false negatives. The sensitivity and specificity for different cut-off scores when using the MDI total score were calculated.


The result from this study suggests that, when MDI is used in population-based samples, cut-off scores rather than the algorithm for depression should be used. The optimal cut-off score must be chosen according to the aims of the study.

Key words

depression population rating scales sensitivity specificity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental Disorders. American Psychiatric Association (4th ed, rev). Washington, DC, APAGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony JC, Folstein MF, Romanovski AJ, Von Korff MR, Nestadt GR, Chahal R, Merchant A, Brown CH, Sapiro S, Kramer M, Gruenberg EM (1985) Comparison of the lay Diagnostic Interview Schedule and a standardized psychiatric diagnosis: experience in eastern Baltimore. Arch Gen Psychiatry 42:667–675PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bech P, Stage K, Nair NPV, Larsen JK, Kragh-Sorensen P, Gjeriss P (1997) The Major Depression Rating Scale (MDS). Inter-rater reliability and validity across different settings in randomised moclobemide trials. J Affect Disord 42:39–48Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bech P, Wermuth, L (1998) Applicability and validity of the Major Depression Inventory in patients with Parkinson’s disease. Nord J Psychiatry 52:305–309Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bech P, Rasmussen NA, Raabaer K, Olsen L, Noerholm V, Abilgard W (2001) The sensitivity and specificity of the Major Depression Inventory using the Present State Examination as the index of diagnostic validity. J Aff Disord 66:159–164Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck AT, Ward CH, Mendelson M, Mock J, Erbaugh J (1961) An inventory for measuring depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 4:561–571PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beck AT, Steer RA, Ball R, Ranieri W (1996) Comparison of the Beck Depression inventories IA and II in psychiatric outpatients. J Pers Assess 132:381–385Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eaton WW, Neufeld K, Chen L-S, Cai G (2000) A comparison of self-reports and clinical diagnostic interviews for depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 57:217–222Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Helzer JE, Robins LN, McEvoy LT, Spitznagel EL, Stoltzman RK, Farmer A, Brockington IF (1985) A comparison of clinical and Diagnostic Interview Schedule diagnoses: re-examination of lay-interviewed cases in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry 42:657–666Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hsiao JK, Bartko JJ, Potter WZ (1989) Diagnosing diagnoses. Arch Gen Psychiatry 46:664–668Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janca A, Kastrup M, Katschnig H, Lopez-Ibor JJ Jr, MezzIich JE, Sartorius N (1996) The World Health Organisation Short Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO DAS-S): a tool for the assessment of difficulties in selected areas of functioning of patients with mental disorders. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 31(6):349–354Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leentjens AFG, Verhey FRJ, Lousberg R, Spitsbergen H, Wilmink FW (2000) The validity of the Hamilton and Montgomery-Åsberg depression rating scales as screening for depression and diagnostic tools for depression in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Ger Psychiatry 15:644–649Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Regier DA, Kaelber CT, Rae DS, Farmer ME, Kanauper B, Kessler RC, Norquist GS (1998a) Limitations of diagnostic criteria and assessment instruments for mental disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 55:109–115Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Regier DA (1998b) In reply, Letters to the editor. Arch Gen Psychiatry 55:1146–1147Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Robins LN, Helzer JE, Croughan J, Ratcliff KS (1981) National Institute of Mental Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule: history, characteristics and validity. Arch Gen Psychiatry 38:381–389PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tomov T, Nikolov V (1990) Reliability of SCAN categories and scores: results of the field trials. In: Stefanis CN, Rabavilas AD, Soldatos CR (eds) Vol 1: Classification and Psychopathology, Child Psychiatry, Substance Use: Proceedings of the VIII World Congress of Psychiatry, Athens,12–19 October 1989. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Excerpta MedicaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wing JK, Babor T, Brugha T, Burke J (1990) SCAN. Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry. Arch Gen Psychiatry 47(6):589–593PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zung WWK (1965) A self-rating depression scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry 12:63–70Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Steinkopff Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Inst. of Public Health, Division of Social MedicineNorrbacka, Karolinska HospitalStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations