Psychometric theory is the basis for the development of assessment instruments in psychiatric research. However, the psychometric model appears to be largely inadequate in the clinical setting because of its lack of sensitivity to change and its quest for homogeneous components. Clinimetrics offers a viable alternative to psychometrics, both from a conceptual and a methodological viewpoint. Current diagnostic entities (DSM) are based on clinimetric principles, but their use is still influenced by psychometric models. Suggestions for switching gears in assessment research are offered.

Keywords:
Psychometrics, Clinimetrics, Anxiety, Depression
1.
Bech P: Rating Scales for Psychopathology, Health Status and Quality of Life. Berlin, Springer, 1993.
2.
Rust J, Golombok S: Modern Psychometrics. The Science of Psychological Assessment. London, Routledge, 1989.
3.
Shapiro MB: An experimental approach to diagnostic psychological testing. J Ment Sci 1951;97:748–764.
4.
Kellner R: Improvement criteria in drug trials with neurotic patients. Part 1. Psychol Med 1971;1:416–425.
5.
Kellner R: Improvement criteria in drug trials with neurotic patients. Part 2. Psychol Med 1972;2:73–80.
6.
Kellner R: The development of sensitive scales for research in therapeutics; in Fava M, Rosenbaum JF (eds): Research Designs and Methods in Psychiatry. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1992, pp 213–222.
7.
Fava GA: The concept of recovery in affective disorders. Psychother Psychosom 1996;65:2–13.
8.
Fava M, Evins AE, Dorer DJ, Schoenfeld DA: The problem of the placebo response in clinical trials for psychiatric disorders: Culprits, possible remedies, and a novel study design approach. Psychother Psychosom 2003;72:115–127.
9.
Grandi S: The sequential parallel comparison model. Psychother Psychosom 2003;72:113–114.
10.
Demyttenaere K, De Fruyt J: Getting what you ask for: On the selectivity of depression rating scales. Psychother Psychosom 2003;72:61–70.
11.
Faries D, Herrera J, Rayamajhi J, De Brota D, Demitrack M, Potter WZ: The responsiveness of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. J Psychiatr Res 2000;34:3–10.
12.
Gibbons RD, Clark DC, Kupfer DJ: Exactly what does the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale measure? J Psychiatr Res 1993;27:259–273.
13.
Carroll BJ, Fielding JM, Blashki TG: Depression rating scales. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1973;28:361–366.
14.
Kearns NP, Cruickshank CA, McGuigan KJ, Riley SA, Shaw SP, Snaith RP: A comparison of depression rating scales. Br J Psychiatry 1982;141:45–49.
15.
Wright JG, Feinstein AR: A comparative contrast of clinimetric and psychometric methods for constructing indexes and rating scales. J Clin Epidemiol 1992;45:1201–1218.
16.
Fava GA, Kellner R, Lisansky J, Park S, Perini GI, Zielezny M: Rating depression in normals and depressives. J Affect Disord 1986;11:29–33.
17.
Ruini C, Ottolini F, Rafanelli C, Tossani E, Ryff CD, Fava GA: The ralationship of psychological well-being to distress and personality. Psychother Psychosom 2003;72:268–275.
18.
Petersen T, Hughes M, Papakostas GI, Kant A, Fava M, Rosenbaum JF, Nierenberg AA: Treatment-resistant depression and Axis II comorbidity. Psychother Psychosom 2002;71:269–274.
19.
Rafanelli C, Park SK, Ruini C, Ottolini F, Cazzaro M, Fava GA: Rating well-being and distress. Stress Med 2000;16:55–61.
20.
Detre TP, Jarecki H: Modern Psychiatric Treatment. Philadelphia, Lippincott, 1971.
21.
Feinstein AR: The Jones criteria and the challenge of clinimetrics. Circulation 1982;66:1–5.
22.
Feinstein AR: An additional science for clinical medicine. 4. The development of clinimetrics. Ann Intern Med 1983;99:843–848.
23.
The Criteria Committee of the New York Heart Association: Disease of the Heart and Blood Vessels, ed 6. Boston, Little Brown, 1964.
24.
Feinstein AR: Multi-item ‘instruments’ versus Virginia Apgar’s principles of clinimetrics. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:125–128.
25.
Feinstein AR: Clinimetrics. New Haven, Yale University Press, 1987.
26.
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). Washington, American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
27.
Fava GA, Kellner R: Staging: A neglected dimension in psychiatric classification. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1993;87:225–230.
28.
Fava GA, Ruini C, Sonino N: Management of recurrent depression in primary care. Psychother Psychosom 2003;72:3–9.
29.
Fava GA: Long-term treatment with antidepressant drugs. Psychother Psychosom 2002;71:127–132.
30.
Cloninger CR: Implications of comorbidity for the classification of mental disorders; in Maj M, Gaebel W, Lopez Ibor JJ, Sartorious N (eds): Psychiatric Diagnosis and Classification. Chichester, Wiley, 2002, pp 79–105.
31.
Jablensky A, Kendell RE: Criteria for assessing a classification in psychiatry; in Maj M, Gaebel W, Lopez Ibor JJ, Sartorious N (eds): Psychiatric Diagnosis and Classification. Chichester, Wiley, 2002, pp 1–24.
32.
van Praag HM: Nosologomania: A disorder of psychiatry. World J Biol Psychiatry 2000;1:151–158.
33.
Fava GA, Kellner R: Prodromal symptoms in affective disorders. Am J Psychiatry 1991;148:823–830.
34.
Feighner JP, Robins E, Guze SB, Woodruff RA, Winokur RA, Winokur G, Munoz R: Diagnostic criteria for use in psychiatric research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1972;26:57–63.
35.
Fava GA, Rafanelli C, Grandi S, Conti S, Belluardo P: Prevention of recurrent depression with cognitive behavioral therapy. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1998;55:816–820.
36.
Emmelkamp PMG, Bouman TK, Scholing A: Anxiety Disorders. A Practitioner’s Guide. Chichester, Wiley, 1992, pp 55–67.
37.
Savron G, Fava GA, Grandi S, Rafanelli C, Raffi AR, Belluardo P: Hypochondriacal fears and beliefs in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1996;93:345–348.
38.
Derogatis LR: The derogatis stress profile (DSP): Quantification of psychological stress; in Fava GA, Wise TN (eds): Research Paradigms in Psychosomatic Medicine. Basel, Karger, 1987, pp 30–54.
39.
Bilsbury CD, Richman A: A staging approach to measuring patient-centred subjective outcomes. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2002;106(suppl 414):5–40.
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
2004
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.