HAM-D/ COMPLIMENTARY NUMERICAL NOMINAL MEASURE

Ham-D is discussed as a new form or screen for depression. It is simple, safer, and more complimentary to other ordinal, interval, or ratio measurements.

Introduction

Ham-D has been revised many times. Its author is Max Hamilton. There is a movement to sharpen the soft or social sciences into behavioral methodologies. The social sciences have stretched its legitimacy with the innovation of the computer. Some strategies have been used to make nominal and ordinal numbers into interval and ratio numbers make social sciences suspect.

Hard sciences are homogenous and viable at the interval and ratio level. That means the measure has a zero baseline, equidistant between numbers, ability complete most or all math computations. It can easily be granted an overall number that is acceptable and cohesive.

The other half of science is the social sciences. That is now questioned by this author and others. As an example, the temperature outside is 70 degrees. That comes from meteorology.  In the same geographical area, what is the number for numerous individuals, groups, and related acting in this area? Let’s say that we are measuring depression. Well, what kind of depression? What is a general ratio number?

A prominent political scientist was black balled from an honorary by a physicist. Political science, sociology, psychology, and even economics (people are non-rational) can it generate an overall number at the ratio stage? Social science is not science nor is the golden word science should be applicable.

Thus, the new name “behavioral methodologies”   is a step above the humanities, but not into science. However, both the Likert and the behavioral methodologies can work with science. As an example Nalli combined both science and behavioral methodologies in search for a lone or many gun men in the assassination of JFK.

On the other hand the behavioral methodologies are stronger than the ranking of presidents of the United States.

For the most part the sciences cannot act alone but need the support of the behavioral methodologies. Further Ham-D is a scale at the present. A scale can measure interval level numbers that indicate “degree.” Thus the Likert can cluster together a group of measures and find a measure of central tendency and statistical assessments.

Behavioral methodologies have generated dummy variables, meta-analysis, and related. Sophisticated multiple regression may be used. The humble chi-squared can bring both levels together, but is not as powerful or as prestigious as other measures. Let’s look at the questions in Ham-D. One is “suicide” What is the measured response that varies from one person who may have tried to terminate themselves and another talking to psychiatrist in a safe setting about suicide? It all comes out that Ham-D may be a nominal measure. What does that mean? Did the patient discuss suicide? YES or NO.?It is a check-list.

Then it becomes part of a series of measures in a work-up. The psychiatrist or related places along with interval and ratio measures like cardiac blood pressure, saliva, urine, blood, and related. Then the medical personnel can look at the total and Ham-D is there. The report may say that patient X has checked 2, 3.6, and 10. The most important is the observer who has both training and observation to indicate the well-being or the lack of mental health of the patient. Number 2 is “suicide.”

This author is attempting to make Ham-D simpler, stronger, and supportive. It should be used with other more sophisticated measurements.

The most risk is to ask a multiple word description dealing with suicide. A safer strategy is to vary each response with “discussed suicide” / “Strongly Agree” “Agree” “Neutral” “Disagree” “Strongly Disagree.” The safest is discussed “suicide” YES/ NO. The last is a check list. Why not have more to a response? That is covered by other measurements that are cognitive or related psychological or physical measurements.

The psychiatrist is the premiere decision maker. Ham-D is one form of information among many. On the other hand, it may be the safest. Further, it is closer to a check list. That is nominal.

Others know the person did or did not mention “suicide.” The degree is left to other measures. Further, if “suicide” was not discussed. Others know immediately and can more safely dismiss that issue.