CNSPulse
W110

INITIAL PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE ANHEDONIA INTERVIEW RATING SCALE CLINICIAN (AIRS) AND SELF-REPORT (AIRS-SR) AMONG POTENTIAL PSYCHIATRY STUDY PARTICIPANTS

Jenicka Engler — Bryan Karazsia1, Sean Madden2, Chris Kelly2, Miriam Evans3, Dyanna Domilici3, Marian Aquino1, Cynthia McNamara1, James Murrough2 1Cronos CCS, 2Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, 3Adams Clinical

2026 ASCP Annual Meeting

Introduction

Anhedonia, defined as a significant reduction in pleasure or interest, is a core symptom of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and is present across other psychiatric indications, according to the DSM-5-TR and ICD-11. Limitations of commonly used anhedonia measures have been documented (Rizvi et al., 2016). A recently developed measure, the Anhedonia Interview Rating Scale (AIRS; Engler et al., 2025), was designed to address these limitations and align with the FDA’s draft guidance on Patient-Focused Drug Development for Clinical Outcome Assessments (FDA, 2022). The present study examined the psychometric properties of the clinician-administered (AIRS) and self-report (AIRS-SR) versions of the AIRS in a sample of prospective psychiatry trial research participants after initial and secondary rounds of cognitive debriefing and iterative revision of the scales.

Methods

A total of 72 participants with a primary diagnosis of a depressive, anxiety, or stressor-related disorder completed the AIRS and AIRS-SR as part of a broader IRB-approved study examining lived experiences of anhedonia. A subset of participants (n = 40) also completed the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS). The sample had a mean age of 38.29 years (SD = 12.43), was 65.3% female, and 66.7% self-identified as white. The most common primary diagnoses were MDD (58.3%), Persistent Depressive Disorder (15.3%), and PostTraumatic Stress Disorder (9.7%).

Results

All participants completed both the AIRS and AIRS-SR, allowing for initial evaluation of internal consistency and convergent validity. Internal consistency was high across scales (Cronbach’s α: AIRS Severity = .94, Frequency = .94, Overall = .97; AIRS-SR Severity = .94, Frequency = .94, Overall = .97). Correlations between clinician and self-report versions were strong (Severity r = .82; Frequency r = .86; Overall r = .86). Concurrent validity was supported by significant correlations between AIRS overall scores and the SHAPS (AIRS: r = .56, p < .001; AIRS-SR: r = .57, p < .001). Descriptive analyses indicated that anhedonia-related constructs were experienced by most participants to some degree, with adequate variability observed across both clinician and self-report measures.

Conclusions

This study provides the first quantitative evaluation of reliability and concurrent validity for the AIRS and AIRS-SR in a clinical sample. Results indicate strong internal consistency, meaningful variability in responses, and moderate correlations with an established measure of anhedonia. Notably, correlations between clinician and self-report AIRS versions were substantially higher than correlations with the SHAPS, suggesting that the AIRS assesses dimensions of anhedonia not fully captured by existing measures. When considered alongside prior qualitative work (Engler et al., 2025), these findings support the AIRS as a promising tool for assessing clinically meaningful, patient-centered aspects of anhedonia.