BACKGROUND: Among existing instruments, the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale has become the gold standard for assessing depressive symptoms. An Arabic version of this instrument is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the psychometric properties of responses to an abridged Arabic version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D6). DESIGN: A total of 125 Bedouin Arabs completed a questionnaire consisting of the HAM-D6 and other Well-Being measures. The HAM-D6 was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Concurrent validity was also examined. RESULTS: Responses to the HAM-D6 suggest that this instrument measures a unidimensional construct with each of the scales’ six items contributing significantly to the measurement. Concurrent validity was established by the scale’s negative association with well-being and positive associations with emotional exhaustion and caregiving burden. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that this abridged Arabic version of the HAM-D6 is appropriate for use for evaluating depressive symptoms.
BachnerY. G.O’RourkeN.GoldfrachtM.BechP.AyalonL. (2013). Psychometric properties of responses by clinicians and older adults to a 6-item Hebrew version of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D6). BMC Psychiatry, 13, 2.
2.
BechP.GramL. F.DeinE.JacobsonO.VitgerG.BlowigT. G. (1975). Quantitative ratings of depressive states. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 51, 161-170.
3.
BedardM.MolloyD. W.SquireL.DuboisS.LeverJ. A.O’DonnellM. (2001). The Zarit Burden Interview: A new short version and screening version. The Gerontologist, 41, 652-657.
4.
CarmodyT. J.RushA. J.BernsteinI.WardenD.BrannanS.WooA.TrivediM. (2006). The Montgomery Asberg and the Hamilton ratings of depression: a comparison of measures. European Neuropsychopharmacology, 16, 601-611.
5.
CuijpersP.SmithF. (2002). Excess mortality in depression: A meta-analysis of community studies. Journal of Affective Disorders, 72, 227-236.
6.
FariesD.HerreraJ.RayamajhiJ.DeBortaD.DemitrackM.PotterW. Z. (2000). The responsiveness of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 34, 3-10.
7.
HamiltonM. (1967). Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6, 278-296.
8.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
9.
Kiecolt-GlaserJ. K.GlaserR. (2002). Depression and immune function: Central pathways to morbidity and mortality. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 53, 873-876.
10.
KollerM.AaronsonN. K.BlazebyJ.BottomleyA.DewolfL.FayersP.. . .WestK. (2007). Translation procedures for standardised quality of life questionnaires: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) approach. European Journal of Cancer, 43, 1810-1820.
11.
LecrubierY.BechP. (2007). The Ham D(6) is more homogenous and as sensitive as the Ham D(17). European Psychiatry, 22, 252-255.
12.
MaslachC. (1978). The client role in staff burn-out. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 111-124.
13.
MillsapR. E. (2007). Structural equation modeling made difficult. Personal and Individual Differences, 42, 875-881.
PitceathlyC.MaguireP. (2003). The psychological impact of cancer on patients’ partners and other key relatives: A review. European Journal of Cancer, 39, 1517-1524.
16.
RichardsD. (2011). Prevalence and clinical course of depression: a review. Clinical Psychology Review, 31, 1117–1125.
17.
WestlandJ. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 476-487.
18.
World Health Organization. (1998). Regional Office for Europe. Well-Being measures in primary health care: The DepCare Project. Consensus meeting, Stockholm.
