In children and youth we use ADIS or K-SADS...

The trouble with the SCID is that it's long, and requires a pretty skilled interviewer. The CIDI-SF can be used successfully in population studies, and is very brief where people don't meet the cardinal symptoms – depressed mood or loss of interest. It doesn't produce a definite diagnosis, which is probably not such a drawback, as the diversity of depressive diagnoses is of less value than knowing that the person checks the boxes for the cardinal symptoms, and so is in line for a diagnosis of some sort.

Hi Eva, The Hamilton Depression Inventory (HAM-D) is used extensively by clinicians and in clinical trials. In it  basic form it is 17 questions long and has cut points for non-depressed, mild, moderate, and severe.  It is advisable to have some train in its use, and to ensure that you have strong inter-rater reliability between different assessors. This latter can be achieved quite easily by assessing some clients (or psuedo clients) simultaneously and then discussing the reasons for your ratings afterwards. Best wishes, Kate

We use the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) (module A for Major Depression, and any other modules as needed) to confirm the diagnoses of MDE/MDD in our studies.  It's super brief, structured, based directly on DSM criteria, and requires only yes/no answers from interviewees.   I see it used all the time in published depression studies.

Here is a link to the latest version:

http://www.psychiatrist.com/private/2010/v71e01/v71e0101/v71e0101l2.pdf

SCID or MINI for differentiation, HAM-D or MADRS for symptom assessment. Beck for self-assessment.

Eva, The problem seems to mainly be available time. Any of the available ones seemed to me to work well, but I found the DASS easiest, fastest, and very accurate and helpful. It is DASS 42 or DASS 21, that indicating the number of questions, 21 working as well as 42. But this might not suit you: it diagnoses Depression and Anxiety, and Stress. Maybe worth a look - on Google.

Cheers, Alex

Hi, I would suggest not to use the DASS either 42 or 21 item version as the factors are typically very highly correlated (r =  .75 to .90) in a range of studies in which we have used it. It basically comes out to a measure of distress with all items summed. Kate

BDI-II is good and simple .

there is one of the ways to improve depression go out side take sun shine and make exercise every once a day.　Ｉ　would think additional tell the client take good sleep and every body have uncomfortable things so do not worry any things about it.   

Vijayakumar -

BDI-II is a self-rating scale. Eve is looking for an interview-based measure.

Hamilton d

Bear in mind, though, that the HAM-D (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) needs to be administered by a clinician experienced in working with psychiatric patients.

To make a qualitative, categorical diagnosis of major depression — the M.I.N.I. or the SCID-I (the M.I.N.I. is easier). To quantitatively measure severity of depression — the MADRS. A severity measure can never be used for diagnosis.

Dear Eve, I would recommend you to use the WHO Major Depression Inventory (MDI). The MDI is a questionnaire which asks the diagnostic criteria of Major Depression. It is a short, reliable, and valid diagnostic tool. You can find the MDI at the WHO-5 website (scroll down) [https://www.psykiatri-regionh.dk/who-5/Pages/default.aspx].

https://www.psykiatri-regionh.dk/CCMH-english/Rating-scales-and-questionnaires/Pages/default.aspx

Thanks for all these suggestions.  Most of the measures are familiar, and I've used them in one study or another, but a few were new to me, such as the DASS.  Always like to use WHO measures whenever possible for obvious reasons.  But I am afraid that a few of the items have low readability for Americans.  Especially in samples of those most in need of care, the reading level can be very low.  3, 4, & 5 syllable words may not be understood.  A few phrases are also not common in American English.  I will look into its use and psychometrics in the U.S.  Also, found this useful 2009 review chapter by Cusin online (and attached).

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCoQFjACahUKEwiV7Jb48aHIAhUG2B4KHQFAB3s&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument%2F9781588299666-c1.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-802906-p173751812&usg=AFQjCNF2djBctuGaiaip595qd-v6w4-mWA&bvm=bv.104226188,d.dmo

Dear Eve, you can use the MDI as a structured interview and even rephrase or comment items which you think are difficult to understand. The review chapter you mentioned refers to screening instruments only, which may not allow diagnosis.

Hi Michael,

I think you are probably right that the wording could be changed to make meaning more understandable when used in the U.S., but a lot of psychometrics researchers get very nervous about the potential for different words to alter psychometric properties.  Possibly, someone has developed a "U.S." version of the MDI for use in field trials for ICD-11 and collected some data to validate it.  If anyone has heard of such work, please post!

Dear Eve,

I think a structured interview for depression should be based on the culture and social and political situation of the country that the person lives. It differs from a region to other region.