Evaluating Depressive Symptoms in Schizophrenia: A Psychometric Comparison of the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale

Background: The aim of this study was to compare two measures of depression in patients with schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorder, including patients with delusional and schizoaffective disorder, to conclude implications for their application. Sampling and Methods: A total of 278 patients were assessed using the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD-17). The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) was also applied. At admission and discharge, a principal component analysis was performed with each depression scale. The two depression rating scales were furthermore compared using correlation and regression analyses. Results: Three factors were revealed for the CDSS and HAMD-17 factor component analysis. A very similar item loading was found for the CDSS at admission and discharge, whereas results of the loadings of the HAMD-17 items were less stable. The first two factors of the CDSS revealed correlations with positive, negative and general psychopathology. In contrast, multiple significant correlations were found for the HAMD-17 factors and the PANSS sub-scores. Multiple regression analyses demonstrated that the HAMD-17 accounted more for the positive and negative symptom domains than the CDSS. Conclusions:The present results suggest that compared to the HAMD-17, the CDSS is a more specific instrument to measure depressive symptoms in schizophrenia and schizophrenia spectrum disorder, especially in acutely ill patients. Copyright (c) 2012 S. Karger AG, Base

“Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence

The rhetoric of “excellence” is pervasive across the academy. It is used to refer to research outputs as well as researchers, theory and education, individuals and organisations, from art history to zoology. But does “excellence” actually mean anything? Does this pervasive narrative of “excellence” do any good? Drawing on a range of sources we interrogate “excellence” as a concept and find that it has no intrinsic meaning in academia. Rather it functions as a linguistic interchange mechanism. To investigate whether this linguistic function is useful we examine how the rhetoric of excellence combines with narratives of scarcity and competition to show that the hypercompetition that arises from the performance of “excellence” is completely at odds with the qualities of good research. We trace the roots of issues in reproducibility, fraud, and homophily to this rhetoric. But we also show that this rhetoric is an internal, and not primarily an external, imposition. We conclude by proposing an alternative rhetoric based on soundness and capacity-building. In the final analysis, it turns out that that “excellence” is not excellent. Used in its current unqualified form it is a pernicious and dangerous rhetoric that undermines the very foundations of good research and scholarship