Performance of the 10-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale for caregiving research.
Performance of the 10-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale for caregiving research.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/2050312113514576
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Montgomery R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Andresen EM;Byers K;Friary J;Kosloski K;Montgomery R
流行病学研究中心抑郁量表（CESD）在广泛的患者和人群结局健康研究中非常有用。当抑郁症状不是主要焦点时，使用简短版本。Rasch（项目反应）分析先前证明了积极措辞项目的潜在问题。我们测试了10项CESD（CESD-10）量表，并考虑了8项版本的心理测量和Rasch分析。这是一个特殊的样本2067照顾者从三个现有的美国数据库。我们描述项目的反应模式和内部的恒定性，除了Rasch量表的结果。几乎没有数据缺失的问题，两个CESD版本的内部一致性都很高（α = 0.86-0.88）。Rasch分析表明，其中一个积极的项目（“对未来充满希望”）可以被删除。我们部分证实了先前的工作，建议删除CESD-10的积极项目。在照顾者中，项目级问题和缩放问题似乎很少。目前，没有强有力的理由放弃CESD-10阳性项目：一个表现不佳的阳性项目可能是由特殊照顾者样本解释的。
The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CESD) scale has been useful in a broad spectrum of health research on patient and population outcomes. A brief version is used when depressive symptoms are not the primary focus. Rasch (item response) analysis previously demonstrated potential problems with positively worded items. We tested the 10-item CESD (CESD-10) scale and considered an 8-item version with both psychometric and Rasch analyses. This was a special sample of 2067 caregivers from three existing US databases. We describe item response patterns and internal constancy in addition to Rasch scale results. There were few problems with missing data, and internal consistency was high (alpha = 0.86–0.88) for both CESD versions. Rasch analysis indicated that one of the positive items (“hopeful about future”) could be dropped. We partly confirmed prior work that suggested dropping positive items for the CESD-10. Among caregivers, item-level problems and scaling problems seem minimal. At present, there is not a strong rationale for dropping the CESD-10 positive items: the one poorly performing positive item might be explained by the special caregiver sample.