Validation of the Rasch-based Depression Screening in a large scale German general population sample.
Validation of the Rasch-based Depression Screening in a large scale German general population sample.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1477-7525-8-105
复制
发表时间：
2010-09-21
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Gauggel S
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Forkmann T;Boecker M;Wirtz M;Glaesmer H;Brähler E;Norra C;Gauggel S
该研究旨在提供两种平行形式的“Rasch-based抑郁症筛查（DESC）”的规范数据，以德国普通人群的代表性样本为基础，检查其Rasch模型的符合性以及收敛和发散的有效性。样本由人口统计咨询公司协助选择，采用面对面访谈（N = 2509，平均年龄= 49.4,SD = 18.2，女性55.8%）。通过分析Rasch模型拟合（infit and outfit）、单维性、局部独立性（残差主成分分析，PCFAR）和差异项目功能（DIF）对参与者年龄和性别的影响来确定对Rasch模型假设的依从性。计算规范值。通过与医院焦虑抑郁量表（HADS-D和HADS-A）的抑郁和焦虑分量表的相互关联来确定收敛效度和发散效度。拟合统计量均低于临界值（< 1.3）。没有DIF的迹象。PCFAR显示，Rasch维度“抑郁”分别解释了68.5% （DESC- i）和69.3% （DESC- ii）的方差，表明DESC具有单维性和局部独立性，与HADS-D的相关系数分别为rDESC-I = 0.61和0.60，与HADS-A的相关系数分别为rDESC-I = 0.62和rDESC-II = 0.60。本研究为DESC的心理测量质量提供了进一步的支持，两种形式的DESC都符合Rasch模型假设，并与HADS子量表显示出与文献一致的相互关系。提出的规范性数据提供了重要的进步，解释问卷得分和提高其有用性的临床和研究应用。
The study aimed at presenting normative data for both parallel forms of the "Rasch-based Depression Screening (DESC)", to examine its Rasch model conformity and convergent and divergent validity based on a representative sample of the German general population. The sample was selected with the assistance of a demographic consulting company applying a face to face interview (N = 2509; mean age = 49.4, SD = 18.2; 55.8% women). Adherence to Rasch model assumptions was determined with analysis of Rasch model fit (infit and outfit), unidimensionality, local independence (principal component factor analysis of the residuals, PCFAR) and differential item functioning (DIF) with regard to participants' age and gender. Norm values were calculated. Convergent and divergent validity was determined through intercorrelations with the depression and anxiety subscales of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-D and HADS-A). Fit statistics were below critical values (< 1.3). There were no signs of DIF. The PCFAR revealed that the Rasch dimension "depression" explained 68.5% (DESC-I) and 69.3% (DESC-II) of the variance, respectively which suggests unidimensionality and local independence of the DESC. Correlations with HADS-D were rDESC-I = .61 and rDESC-II = .60, whereas correlations with HADS-A were rDESC-I = .62 and rDESC-II = .60. This study provided further support for the psychometric quality of the DESC. Both forms of the DESC adhered to Rasch model assumptions and showed intercorrelations with HADS subscales that are in line with the literature. The presented normative data offer important advancements for the interpretation of the questionnaire scores and enhance its usefulness for clinical and research applications.