Anhedonia is a core feature of many psychiatric disorders and its reliable evaluation is needed for the dimensional understanding of psychiatric disorders. Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) is one of the most widely used scale to assess anhedonia. Here, we aimed to search the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of SHAPS. Translation of the original scale was completed in a two-step procedure. 188 healthy controls, 56 patients with a depressive disorder (F32-F34, excluding F34.0 cyclothymic disorder, according to ICD-10), and 52 patients with anxiety, stress-related or somatoform disorder diagnoses (F40-49 diagnosis according to ICD-10) were recruited, and evaluated with the Turkish version of SHAPS, Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R). For the Turkish version of SHAPS, Cronbachs alpha coefficient was found 0.87. The item-total item correlation indices ranged from 0.39 to 0.64. Principal components analysis extracted two factors and explained 46.57 % of total variance. The most significant correlation of SHAPS was found with BDI scores. SHAPS weakly correlated with somatization, interpersonal sensitivity and depression sub-scales of SCL-90-R, but not with BAI or other sub-scales of SCL-90-R. Depressive group had significantly higher SHAPS scores compared to controls and anxious group. Anxious group and control group were not significantly different for SHAPS scores. The current study shows that the Turkish version of the SHAPS has good psychometric properties. SHAPS scores may correlate with depression, somatization, and interpersonal sensitivity scores, and it may help to differentiate depressive patients from anxious patients and controls.
Key words: Anhedonia, depression, interpersonal sensitivity, anxiety, reliability