The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale

A Review with a Theoretical and Empirical Examination of Item Content and Factor Structure

Dados Bibliográficos

ID23366169
AutoresR Nicholas Carleton (0000-0002-6083-8935, University of Regina, autor correspondente), Michel A Thibodeau (University of Regina), Michelle J N Teale (University of Regina), Patrick G Welch (University of Regina), Murray P Abrams (University of Regina), Thomas P Robinson (Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region), Thomas Robinson (0000-0001-7097-1599), Gordon J G Asmundson (0000-0002-7886-4058, University of Regina)
EditoresHamid Reza Baradaran (0000-0002-5070-5864)
Ano2013
Volume8
Fascículo3
Páginase58067
Data de publicação2013-03-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessSim
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoPLoS ONE (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 1932-6203 • E-ISSN: 1932-6203
EditoraPublic Library of Science (PLoS) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0058067
PMID23469262
OpenAlexW2061477359
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas77
Referências citadas61

BACKGROUND: The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) is a commonly used freely available self-report measure of depressive symptoms. Despite its popularity, several recent investigations have called into question the robustness and suitability of the commonly used 4-factor 20-item CES-D model. The goal of the current study was to address these concerns by confirming the factorial validity of the CES-D. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Differential item functioning estimates were used to examine sex biases in item responses, and confirmatory factor analyses were used to assess prior CES-D factor structures and new models heeding current theoretical and empirical considerations. Data used for the analyses included undergraduate (n = 948; 74% women), community (n = 254; 71% women), rehabilitation (n = 522; 53% women), clinical (n =84; 77% women), and National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES; n = 2814; 56% women) samples. Differential item functioning identified an item as inflating CES-D scores in women. Comprehensive comparison of the several models supported a novel, psychometrically robust, and unbiased 3-factor 14-item solution, with factors (i.e., negative affect, anhedonia, and somatic symptoms) that are more in line with current diagnostic criteria for depression. CONCLUSIONS: Researchers and practitioners may benefit from using the novel factor structure of the CES-D and from being cautious in interpreting results from the originally proposed scale. Comprehensive results, implications, and future research directions are discussed.

Anhedonia · Anxiety · Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale · Confirmatory factor analysis · Depressive symptoms · Differential item functioning · Item response theory · MEDLINE · Psychiatry · Psychometrics · PsycINFO · Scale (ratio) · Statistics · Structural equation modeling · Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes · Clinical Psychology · Medicine · Personality Traits and Psychology · Psychology · Psychometric Methodologies and Testing