Institute for Psychological Research- IPsi, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico00931-3174.
J Consult Clin Psychol. 2010 Jun;78(3):398-408. doi: 10.1037/a0019054.
The authors of this study aimed to evaluate 2-factor structures for the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) reported in the literature to determine which one proves to be a better fit with the data on low-income Puerto Ricans living on the island.
The sample consisted of 3,504 civilian noninstitutionalized Puerto Ricans, ranging in age from 18 to 64 who were living in low-income areas of Puerto Rico. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was implemented, and model fit was assessed with the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the comparative fit index (CFI), and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA).
The CFA results obtained for the Radloff (1977) and Guarnaccia, Angel, and Worobey (1989) models show that neither model obtained adequate fit indexes. Exploratory factor analysis revealed that the 2-factor structure not only obtained better fit indexes (TLI = .948, CFI = .955, RMSEA = .048) but also reflected a better conceptual organization of the factors (basically divided into 2 components: Negative Affect and Positive Affect). When we assessed the model fit by gender, the model consistently fit the data for the female subsample but not for the male one.
Results confirm the need to address the issues related to measurement equivalence for specific cultural and language gaps in assessment of depressive symptoms. Lack of factor invariance across gender also raises the question of the appropriateness of this measure for the male subsample and the need for further research in the manifestation of depression in this group.
本研究的作者旨在评估文献中报告的流行病学研究抑郁量表(CES-D)的 2 因素结构,以确定哪一种结构更适合居住在波多黎各岛上的低收入波多黎各人群的数据。
该样本由 3504 名年龄在 18 至 64 岁之间的非机构化的波多黎各平民组成,他们居住在波多黎各的低收入地区。进行了验证性因素分析(CFA),并使用塔克 - 刘易斯指数(TLI)、比较拟合指数(CFI)和近似均方根误差(RMSEA)评估模型拟合度。
拉德洛夫(1977 年)和瓜尔纳西亚、安吉尔和沃罗比(1989 年)模型的 CFA 结果表明,这两种模型都没有获得足够的拟合指数。探索性因素分析表明,两因素结构不仅获得了更好的拟合指数(TLI =.948,CFI =.955,RMSEA =.048),而且还反映了因素的更好的概念组织(基本上分为 2 个组成部分:负性情绪和正性情绪)。当我们按性别评估模型拟合度时,该模型始终适用于女性子样本的数据,但不适用于男性子样本的数据。
结果证实需要解决与评估抑郁症状的特定文化和语言差距相关的测量等效性问题。性别之间的因子不变性缺乏也提出了这个测量方法是否适用于男性子样本的问题,以及需要进一步研究这个群体中抑郁的表现。