Talk:PHQ-9

Draft 1 General Comments

 * I like the way your sections are laid out. You've covered a lot of territory!
 * Review your writing to convert sentences in the passive voice to active voice
 * Be careful in your word choice. A score of X may be indicative of depressive symptoms but do not mean a person is clinically depressed. A study must have created that cross-walk, but I would worry that someone will read it as a fact and not a guideline.

Draft 1 Specific Comments

 * I think the first sentence could be stronger. Remember the opening sentence of a wikipedia post should state the Subject of the post, what group it belongs to (e.g., health status measures), and what its specific features are (depression screen)
 * Can you add more to the History section? When was the patient health questionnaire developed? What does it measure?
 * In addition to the primary care context, is the PHQ-9 used in other settings as well? It may also be worth noting that the PHQ-2 has become a quality measure.
 * The section title "Questions" is a bit confusing because the PHQ is a questionnaire, consider changing to "survey items"
 * I like that you are including a reliability and validity section. You've identified some of the key pieces, but can you add a bit more context. Were these studies conducted recently? A long time ago? Have there been any studies in other countries or other language translations?

Eva.dugoff (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

LA Review
The links to other topics were great throughout the article. The scoring section was extremely informative.

It would be nice to see PHQ defined earlier in the article - perhaps the first sentence or paragraph if not the article title. It looks like wiki has an issue with one of your sources, you might consider looking into that. The section on Reliability reads rough "Reliability and tests found...".

Lalaily (talk) 02:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)L. Alaily

Many edits
I made a great many edits over two days. That is the way I edit. My modus operandi is to employ the idea of successive approximations. Sometimes I change edits I made earlier as the big picture takes shape or I see that I goofed somewhere in my editing. When I met up with the PHQ-9 article as a result of my edits of the psychological testing entry, I thought the article needed work. Some of the writing could benefit from editing. The article needed to be clearer and reasonably accessible to general, non-specialist readers. There are, however, likely to be a small number of stumbling blocks facing non-specialists (e.g., Cronbach's alpha) although I don't think such content can, or should, be avoided. We can oversimplify and compromise quality and accuracy. I believe that despite a small number of technical details, most of the article is accessible to non-specialists.Iss246 (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)