Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 16, Issue 9, pp 606–613 | Cite as

The PHQ-9

Validity of a brief depression severity measure
  • Kurt KroenkeEmail author
  • Robert L. Spitzer
  • Janet B. W. Williams
Original Articles


OBJECTIVE: While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity.

MEASUREMENTS: The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-9 is the depression module, which scores each of the 9 DSM-IV criteria as “0” (not at all) to “3” (nearly every day). The PHQ-9 was completed by 6,000 patients in 8 primary care clinics and 7 obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Construct validity was assessed using the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey, self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. Criterion validity was assessed against an independent structured mental health professional (MHP) interview in a sample of 580 patients.

RESULTS: As PHQ-9 depression severity increased, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and health care utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-9 score ≥10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression. PHQ-9 scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represented mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples.

CONCLUSION: In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity. These characteristics plus its brevity make the PHQ-9 a useful clinical and research tool.

Key words

depression diagnosis screening psychological tests health status 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Mulrow CD, Williams JW, Gerety MB, Ramirez G, Montiel OM, Kerber C. Case-finding instruments for depression in primary care settings. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122:913–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Whooley MA, Avins AL, Miranda J, Browner WS. Case-finding instruments for depression: two questions are as good as many. J Gen Intern Med. 1997;12:439–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keller MB, Kocsis JH, Thase ME, et al. Maintenance phase efficacy of sertraline for chronic depression: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 1998;280:1665–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    McDowell I, Kristjansson E, Newell C. Depression. In: McDowell I, Newell C, eds. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1996:238–86.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW. Patient Health Questionnaire Study Group. Validity and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MD: the PHQ Primary Care Study. JAMA. 1999;282:1737–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Kroenke K, et al. Validity and utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire in assessment of 3000 obstetric-gynecologic patients: the PRIME-MD Patient Health Questionnaire Obstetrics-Gynecology Study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;183:759–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS Short Form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26:724–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Gibbon M, First MB. The structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R (SCID). Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1992;49:624–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Kroenke K, et al. Utility of a new procedure for diagnosing mental disorders in primary care: the PRIME-MD 1000 study. JAMA. 1994;272:1749–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sackett DL, Haynes RB, Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1991:1–441.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murphy JM, Berwick DM, Weinstein MC, et al. Performance of screening and diagnostic tests: application of receiver operating characteristic analysis. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1987;44:550–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pasacreta JV. Measuring depression. In: Frank-Stromborg M, Olsen SJ, eds. Instruments for Clinical Health-Care Research. 2nd Ed. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers; 1997:342–630.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berwick DM, Murphy JM, Goldman PA, Ware JE, Barsky AJ, Weinstein MC. Performance of a five-item mental health screening test. Med Care. 1991;29:169–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry. 1979;134:382–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Davidson J, Turnbull CD, Strickland R, et al. The Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale: reliability and validity. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1986;73:544–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lambert MJ, Hatch DR, Kingston MD, et al. Zung, Beck, and Hamilton rating scales as measures of treatment outcome: a meta-analytic comparison. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1986;54:54–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katon W, Robinson P, Von Korff M, et al. A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment of depression in primary care. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1996;53:924–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E, et al. Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines: impact on depression in primary care. JAMA. 1995;273:1026–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Williams JW, Barrett J, Oxman T, et al. Treatment of dysthymia and minor depression in primary care: a randomized controlled trial in older adults. JAMA. 2000;284:1519–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kroenke K, Taylor-Vaisey A, Dietrich AJ, Oxman TE. Interventions to improve provider diagnosis and treatment of mental disorders in primary care: a critical review of the literature. Psychosomatics. 2000;41:39–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Simon GE. Can depression be managed appropriately in primary care? J Clin Psychiatry. 1998;59(suppl 2):3–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hunkeler EM, Meresman J, Hargreaves WA, et al. Efficacy of nurse telehealth care and peer support in augmenting treatment of depression in primary care. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:700–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kobak KA, Taylor LH, Dottl SL, et al. A computer-administered telephone interview to identify mental disorders. JAMA. 1997;278:905–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williams JW, Mulrow CD, Kroenke K, et al. Case-finding for depression improves patient outcomes: results from a randomized trial in primary care. Am J Med. 1999;106:36–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Blackwell Science Inc 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kurt Kroenke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert L. Spitzer
    • 2
  • Janet B. W. Williams
    • 2
  1. 1.the Regenstrief Institute for Health Care and Department of MedicineIndiana UniversityIndianapolis
  2. 2.the New York State Psychiatric Institute and Department of PsychiatryColumbia UniversityNew York

Personalised recommendations