Validation of an IVRS version of the MADRS

James C. Mundt, David J. Katzelnick, Sidney H. Kennedy, Beata S. Eisfeld, Beverley B. Bouffard, John H. Greist

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

29 Scopus citations


Interest in self-reported measures of depression in clinical trials has grown in recent years. This study compared the reliability and validity of the clinician-administered Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) to a computer-administered version administered over the telephone using Interactive Voice Response (IVR) technology. Sixty subjects were administered both the clinician- and computer-administered versions of the MADRS in a counter-balanced order. A subsample of 20 patients was reassessed 24 h later by both methods. Mean score differences between IVR and clinician were not statistically significant (<1 point) and a high correlation was found between forms (r = .815, p < .001). Reliability measures (Cronbach's Alpha and 24-h test-retest) were comparable. Clinicians rated the severity of subjects' sadness and pessimistic thoughts lower than subjects self-report. The data obtained in this pilot study provide support for the equivalence between the clinician and IVR versions of the MADRS.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)243-246
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Psychiatric Research
Issue number3
StatePublished - Apr 2006


  • Computer communication networks
  • Computers
  • Depression
  • Outcome assessment
  • Self assessment
  • Validation study

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Biological Psychiatry


Dive into the research topics of 'Validation of an IVRS version of the MADRS'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this