Talking bodies: nonverbal behavior in the assessment of depression severity

BACKGROUND: Evaluations of clinical depression are traditionally based on verbal information. Nonverbal expressive behavior, however, being associated with a person's reflexive responses, may reveal negative emotional or social processes that are not under complete control of the patients. However, investigations of nonverbal behavior in the evaluation of depressed patients are still scarce. This study examines the nonverbal behaviors of a group of Brazilian patients, associating their nonverbal behavior with severity of depression. METHODS: Forty depressed patients were evaluated at baseline (T0) and after a two-week transcranial direct current stimulation treatment (T1), according to rating scales and through a 21-category Ethogram for assessment of the frequency of nonverbal behaviors displayed during an interview. RESULTS: Behaviors that were related to negative feelings and social disinterest decreased with corresponding clinical improvement and were associated with increased severity of symptoms at T0 and greater negative affect and dissatisfaction at T1. Pro-social behaviors were associated with milder symptoms at T0 and increased after treatment. Facial, head and hand expressive movements stood out as important indicators because of their associations with severity of depression. LIMITATIONS: Duration of behaviors was not assessed and there was not a healthy control group with which to compare the findings. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the usefulness of nonverbal behavior as an evaluation technique in the assessment of clinical depression.

Assessment of depression in medical patients: a systematic review of the utility of the beck depression inventory-II

To perform a systematic review of the utility of the Beck Depression Inventory for detecting depression in medical settings, this article focuses on the revised version of the scale (Beck Depression Inventory-II), which was reformulated according to the DSM-IV criteria for major depression. We examined relevant investigations with the Beck Depression Inventory-II for measuring depression in medical settings to provide guidelines for practicing clinicians. Considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria seventy articles were retained. Validation studies of the Beck Depression Inventory-II, in both primary care and hospital settings, were found for clinics of cardiology, neurology, obstetrics, brain injury, nephrology, chronic pain, chronic fatigue, oncology, and infectious disease. The Beck Depression Inventory-II showed high reliability and good correlation with measures of depression and anxiety. Its threshold for detecting depression varied according to the type of patients, suggesting the need for adjusted cut-off points. The somatic and cognitive-affective dimension described the latent structure of the instrument. The Beck Depression Inventory-II can be easily adapted in most clinical conditions for detecting major depression and recommending an appropriate intervention. Although this scale represents a sound path for detecting depression in patients with medical conditions, the clinician should seek evidence for how to interpret the score before using the Beck Depression Inventory-II to make clinical decisions

Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory-II: a comprehensive review

OBJECTIVE: To review the psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) as a self-report measure of depression in a variety of settings and populations. METHODS: Relevant studies of the BDI-II were retrieved through a search of electronic databases, a hand search, and contact with authors. Retained studies (k = 118) were allocated into three groups: non-clinical, psychiatric/institutionalized, and medical samples. RESULTS: The internal consistency was described as around 0.9 and the retest reliability ranged from 0.73 to 0.96. The correlation between BDI-II and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-I) was high and substantial overlap with measures of depression and anxiety was reported. The criterion-based validity showed good sensitivity and specificity for detecting depression in comparison to the adopted gold standard. However, the cutoff score to screen for depression varied according to the type of sample. Factor analysis showed a robust dimension of general depression composed by two constructs: cognitive-affective and somatic-vegetative. CONCLUSIONS: The BDI-II is a relevant psychometric instrument, showing high reliability, capacity to discriminate between depressed and non-depressed subjects, and improved concurrent, content, and structural validity. Based on available psychometric evidence, the BDI-II can be viewed as a cost-effective questionnaire for measuring the severity of depression, with broad applicability for research and clinical practice worldwide.