Search

Background and Objective: To validate the Spanish versions of both the Clinical Anxiety Scale (CAS) and the Physician Questionnaire (PQ) to assess the severity of symptoms in patients with Anxiety Disorders (AD) treated in ambulatory psychiatric care facilities., Patients and Method: Observational, prospective and multi-centre study (15 psychiatric facilities included) with a follow-up of 1 to 6 weeks in clinically stable or unstable AD patients. We assessed their convergent validity (with the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale as reference), discriminant validity (as compared with the Clinical Global Impression), reliability (internal consistency, test-retest and inter-raters) and sensitivity to change., Results: One hundred and sixty one AD patients were included (48 stable and 133 unstable patients). Both the CAS and the PQ showed appropriate convergent (r >= 0.70) and discriminant validity (p 0.001), internal consistency (Cronbach's a > 0.75), test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] > 0,90), inter-raters reliability (ICC > 0.90) and sensitivity to change (p < 0.0001; effect size >= 1.5)., Conclusions: The Spanish versions of both rating scales show appropriate validity and reliability and thus can be used to assess the severity of anxiety symptoms and their change in AD patients treated in ambulatory care.

Background and Objective: Former Spanish studies on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) have focused on the 17 items version and have been conducted in depressive in-patient series. This study compares the psychometric properties of the Spanish version of HDRS with 6, 17 and 21 items as assessed in depressive patients in ambulatory care., Patients and Method: A prospective, observational and multicenter study was conducted in clinically stable or unstable depressed patients. The discriminative validity, reliability (internal consistency, test-retest and inter-raters) and sensitivity to change were assessed., Results: One hundred and sixty eight patients from 15 psychiatric facilities were included. The 6, 17 and 21 items versions of HDRS showed appropriate discriminative validity (HDRS-Clinical Global Impression: p < 0.0001); internal consistency (Cronbach *: HDRS-6 = 0.6; HDRS-17 and 21 >= 0.7); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: HDRS-6, 17 and 21 >= 0.9); inter-raters reliability (ICC: HDRS-6, 17 and 21 >= 0.9) and sensitivity to change (effect size >= 1.5 for HDRS-6, 17 and 21)., Conclusions: Spanish versions of HDRS with 6, 17 and 21 items show similar psychometric properties. HDRS-6 could be useful in ambulatory and primary care.