The Articles
Hamilton Depression Rating Scale is one of the widely used tools in hospitals to determine factors, which contributes to an individual’s stress. In this study, the researcher compared two articles, which used this rating scale to measure the depression rates on patients. The article by Hamilton (1960) involved a clinical rating, which was conducted among adult population for about 20-30 minutes. The main purpose of the test was to assess the severity and changes in depressive symptoms among the selected group. The test was done in a hospital setting among patients who had stress-related problems. In this HDRS, the researcher used a score of 0-4. The second article by Hedlung and Vieweg (1979) focused on determining the severity of stress among those who have been confirmed to be suffering from depression. This test was conducted among a group of patients of different ages. Just like in the first article, this article focused on determining how severe the stress was, and how it affected the patients.
Both articles used a similar pattern to determine the severity of depression among the patients. In both cases, the researchers clearly indicated that the higher the level of rating, the higher the depression. Both articles involve use of a series of questions, which are meant to determine some of the problems that patients are facing that can be classified as stress. It is clear that both articles heavily rely on the responses given by the participants. It means that in order to obtain the relevant data, the participants must be able to understand their own feelings and classify them within the options provided. In case these participants are unable to classify their own feelings, then chances are high that the results, which are obtained from such exercise, will be inaccurate. This is worsened by the fact that the professional administering the question is not allowed to influence the response in any way. There are cases when the professional is able to detect specific feelings of the participants in a unique way. It is unfortunate that he or she is not allowed to influence the responses based on what they observe. In some cases, the respondents would deliberately give wrong answers in order to avoid controversy or victimization. This would result into a situation where the data gathered are not a true reflection of what is troubling the patient. This means that the responses obtained will not address the issues affecting the patient.
Despite the above similarities, a few fundamental differences come out in the two articles, most likely because they focused on slightly different issues. While the article by Hamilton (1960) focused on a specific group of people (adults), the article by Hedlung and Vieweg (1979) focused on different categories of individuals who were suffering from some form of depression. Because of the difference in their focus, the two articles had different patterns of questions. The questions that were set in the first article are very different from that in the second article. The structures of the questions also differ. An analysis of the two articles shows that there is a difference in their rating scales. While the article by Hamilton (1960) was specifically structured within a score of 1-4, the article by Hedlung and Vieweg (1979) had variations, with some areas having a scale of 0-4, while others had 0-2.
One of the measures that come out from the first article is the anxiety somatic. According to Arbon and Ranse (2013), anxiety is one of the factors that may have serious negative consequences on an individual. The main problem is that sometimes people do not realize that they are suffering from anxiety. Other people may know that they have this problem, but may not be aware of ways through which it can be addressed. However, the best way in which this issue can be addressed is to start by rating it as per the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. This will help a person to rate the psychological problem as absent, mild, moderate, severe, or incapacitating, based on the consequences it has on an individual. When it is determined that anxiety is absent, then there will be no cause of concern. However, if the ratings were severe or incapacitating, then it would mean that immediate interventions would be needed in order to eliminate its negative consequences.
Qualified People Who Can Use the Ratting Scale
According to Arbon and Ranse (2013), not everyone may have the capacity to use Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. This very complex scale involves identifying various psychological problems that may have serious impact on one’s life. In order to understand why this rating scale needs qualified people, it is necessary to identify some of the requirements of using it. According to Arbon and Ranse (2013), in order to use the scale, one should be able to identify specific issue that is causing depression. For instance, singling out stress as the main depressant is vague. One should be able to identify a specific issue such as anxiety as a factor that is causing depression. After indentifying the specific factor, it will be important to know how to rate it in a way that will be easily comprehended by the target group. In most of the cases, the target group would involve individuals with no medical background, and sometimes they may not understand complex medical terms. This means that when developing the questionnaire to be used, the respondents must clearly state the questions in very clear terms that will be understandable to this special group. The questions should reflect the same medical concept that is desired by the professional, but expressed in a simple language that will be understood by the participants. It requires a psychologist who understands the right context under which this tool will be necessary. Nurses who have undergone special training can also use the tool under the guidance of the relevant doctors within a hospital setting. Counselors can also find this tool very important, especially when dealing with clients who are in denial over a given issue.
Population for Which the Psychological Measure is Valid
When measuring anxiety, it is very important to understand the population under which it will be valid and cases where it will be invalid. According to Arbon and Ranse (2013), anxiety is a psychological state that is common in every normal human being. It cuts across all age groups, from young children to the aging population. For instance, a young child who has been promised a bicycle by the father will develop anxiety as it waits for the time the gift will be delivered. Similarly, an old woman may suffer from anxiety when she goes to a hospital to test if she has breast cancer. This measure may however, be invalid among the mentally retarded individuals.
References
Arbon, P. & Ranse, J. (2013). Australasian emergency nurses’ willingness to attend work in a disaster. Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal 16(1), 52-57.
Hamilton M. (1960). A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 23(1), 56–62.
Hedlung, G. & Vieweg, J. (1979). The Hamilton rating scale for depression. Journal of Operational Psychiatry 10(2), 149-165.