Development and Testing of a Five‐Item Version of the Geriatric Depression Scale

Bibliographic Data

ID23327832
AuthorsM Trinidad Hoyl, Trinidad Hoyl (0000-0002-3870-6354, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, corresponding author), Cathy A Alessi, Cathy Alessi (0000-0002-0396-9066, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center), Judith O Harker (Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center), Karen Josephson (0000-0003-4237-5858, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center), Karen R Josephson, Fern M Pietruszka (Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center), Maryanne Koelfgen (Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center), James Randy Mervis (United States Department of Veterans Affairs), L Jaime Fitten (United States Department of Veterans Affairs), Laurence Z Rubenstein (0000-0001-5910-0266, Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center)
Year1999
Volume47
Issue7
Pages873-878
Publication date1999-07-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of the American Geriatrics Society (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-8614 • E-ISSN: 1532-5415
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1532-5415.1999.tb03848.x
PMID10404935
OpenAlexW2001261200
LanguageEN
Citations received61
References cited36

OBJECTIVE: To develop and test the effectiveness of a 5‐item version of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) in screening for depression in a frail community‐dwelling older population. DESIGN: A cross‐sectional study. SETTING: A geriatric outpatient clinic at the Sepulveda VA Medical Center, Sepulveda, California. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 74 frail outpatients (98.6% male, mean age 74.6) enrolled in an ongoing trial. MEASUREMENTS: Subjects had a comprehensive geriatric assessment that included a structured clinical evaluation for depression with geropsychiatric consultation. A 5‐item version of the GDS was created from the 15‐item GDS by selecting the items with the highest Pearson x 1 correlation with clinical diagnosis of depression. Sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for the 15‐item GDS and the new 5‐item scale. RESULTS: Subjects had a mean GDS score of 6.2 (range 0–15). Clinical evaluation found that 46% of subjects were depressed. The depressed and not depressed groups were similar with regard to demographics, mental status, educational level, and number of chronic medical conditions. Using clinical evaluation as the gold standard for depression, the 5‐item GDS (compared with the 15‐item GDS results shown in parentheses) had a sensitivity of. 97 (.94), specificity of. 85 (.83), positive predictive value of. 85 (.82), negative predictive value of. 97 (.94), and accuracy of. 90 (.88) for predicting depression. Significant agreement was found between depression diagnosis and the 5‐item GDS (kappa = 0.81). Multiple other short forms were tested, and are discussed. The mean administration times for the 5‐ and 15‐item GDS were. 9 and 2.7 minutes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The 5‐item GDS was as effective as the 15‐item GDS for depression screening in this population, with a marked reduction in administration time. If validated elsewhere, it may prove to be a preferred screening test for depression.

Anxiety · Depression (economics) · Depressive symptoms · Geriatric Depression Scale · Geriatrics · Gold standard (test) · Physical therapy · Psychiatry · Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research · Frailty in Older Adults · Internal Medicine · Medicine · Mental Health Treatment and Access · Gerontology