ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Establishing content validity of the Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was designed to evaluate content validity of the Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale (DARS), a patient-reported outcome measure, in adults with anhedonia in the context of major depressive disorder (MDD). To accomplish this, a conceptual model including the symptoms and impacts of anhedonia in the context of MDD was developed and refined through a targeted literature review, clinician interviews (N = 6), and participant interviews (N = 20).
resultsUsing the final conceptual model, an item mapping exercise was conducted for the DARS, demonstrating that it provided suitable concept coverage in this population. Cognitive debriefing of the DARS with participants demonstrated that it was generally well understood and clear.
conclusionsOverall, the study established that the DARS demonstrates content validity in adults with anhedonia in the context of MDD. Other measurement properties of the DARS will be evaluated in planned psychometric analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.