Suppr超能文献

用于照护研究的10项流行病学研究中心抑郁量表的性能

Performance of the 10-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale for caregiving research.

作者信息

Andresen Elena M, Byers Katherine, Friary John, Kosloski Karl, Montgomery Rhonda

机构信息

Institute on Development & Disability, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.

Department of Counseling, Rehabilitation Counseling & Counseling Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA.

出版信息

SAGE Open Med. 2013 Dec 2;1:2050312113514576. doi: 10.1177/2050312113514576. eCollection 2013.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

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.

METHODS

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.

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

摘要

目的

流行病学研究中心抑郁量表(CESD)在广泛的关于患者和人群结局的健康研究中很有用。当抑郁症状不是主要关注点时,会使用其简短版本。拉施(项目反应)分析先前证明了正向表述项目存在潜在问题。我们对10项CESD(CESD - 10)量表进行了测试,并通过心理测量学和拉施分析考虑了一个8项版本。

方法

这是一个来自美国三个现有数据库的2067名护理人员的特殊样本。除了拉施量表结果外,我们还描述了项目反应模式和内部一致性。

结果

缺失数据问题较少,两个CESD版本的内部一致性都很高(α = 0.86 - 0.88)。拉施分析表明,其中一个正向项目(“对未来充满希望”)可以删除。

结论

我们部分证实了之前关于为CESD - 10删除正向项目的研究。在护理人员中,项目层面的问题和量表问题似乎最小。目前,没有强有力的理由删除CESD - 10的正向项目:表现不佳的那个正向项目可能是由护理人员这个特殊样本所解释的。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0e40/4687763/d4a118931875/10.1177_2050312113514576-fig1.jpg

相似文献

4
Validation of the 10-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Post Stroke.脑卒中后 10 项流行病学研究抑郁量表的验证。
J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2020 Dec;29(12):105334. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.105334. Epub 2020 Sep 28.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Mobility, disability, and social engagement in older adults.老年人的流动性、残疾和社会参与度。
J Aging Health. 2013 Jun;25(4):617-37. doi: 10.1177/0898264313482489. Epub 2013 Apr 2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验