. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2015 Mar 1.

Published in final edited form as: Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2013 Jun 25;129(3):211–220. doi: 10.1111/acps.12165

Table 5. Clinical validity and responsiveness of the HAMD-BPRS composite rating scales.

Clinical validity
	Week 4 (n=185)	Week 8 (n=144)	Week 12 (n=134)
HAMD-BPRS₇	0.74	0.81	0.82
HAMD-BPRS₈	0.77	0.83	0.83
HAMD-BPRS₉	0.78	0.83	0.83
HAMD-BPRS₁₀	0.79	0.83	0.83
HAMD-BPRS₁₁	0.79	0.83	0.84
HAMD-BPRS₁₂	0.81	0.84	0.84
HAMD-BPRS₁₃	0.81	0.84	0.84
Responsiveness
	Week 4 (LOCF)	Week 8 (LOCF)	Week 12 (LOCF)
HAMD-BPRS₇	-0.74	-0.78	-0.79
HAMD-BPRS₈	-0.75	-0.79	-0.81
HAMD-BPRS₉	-0.74	-0.79	-0.79
HAMD-BPRS₁₀	-0.75	-0.79	-0.79
HAMD-BPRS₁₁	-0.74	-0.78	-0.78
HAMD-BPRS₁₂	-0.75	-0.77	-0.76
HAMD-BPRS₁₃	-0.75	-0.76	-0.76

Above - clinical validity: Spearman correlation analysis for the total scores on the seven HAMD-BPRS composite rating scales versus Clinical Global Impression – Severity (CGI-S) scores at week 4, 8 and 12. Below - responsiveness: Spearman correlation analysis for the change in rating scale total scores from baseline to week 4, 8 and 12 versus Clinical Global Impression – Improvement (CGI-I) scores at CGI-I at week 4, 8 and 12 (n=252 - Last observation carried forward (LOCF)). All correlations were statistically significant (p<0.001).