在六个不同的干预试验中,中心流行病学研究量表-抑郁的测量不变性。

Measurement invariance of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Scale-Depression within and across six diverse intervention trials.

机构信息

Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University.

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, School of Medicine, Emory University.

出版信息

Psychol Assess. 2023 Oct;35(10):805-820. doi: 10.1037/pas0001262. Epub 2023 Aug 24.

Abstract

Depression, a major contributor to the global burden of disease, is an outcome of interest in clinical trials. Researchers and clinicians note that depression often presents differently across cultures, posing challenges in the accurate measurement of depressive symptoms across populations. A commonly used self-administered screening tool to measure depressive symptoms, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Scale-Depression (CES-D), has been translated into dozens of languages and used in thousands of studies, yet gaps remain in our understanding of its factor structure and invariance across studies and over time in the context of interventions. In this secondary analysis, we sampled six recent trials from lower- and middle-income countries to (a) establish the factor structure of the CES-D, (b) assess measurement invariance of the CES-D across treatment versus control arms and over time, (c) examine cross-study invariance, and (d) identify items that may be driving potential noninvariance. We performed exploratory/confirmatory factor analysis to establish the factor structure of the CES-D within each trial and used multiple group confirmatory analysis to assess within-study cross-arm/cross-time and cross-study invariance. After removal of positive affect items, a unidimensional model performed equivalently over time and across arms within trials, but exhibited noninvariance across trials, supporting prior literature describing differences in factor structure of the scale across populations. While our findings suggest that the CES-D without positive affect items is a valid measure of depressive symptoms within trials in our sample, caution is warranted in interpreting the findings of meta-analyses and multisite/multicountry studies using the CES-D as an outcome measure. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

摘要

抑郁症是全球疾病负担的主要因素之一,也是临床试验关注的结果。研究人员和临床医生指出,抑郁症在不同文化中表现不同,这给跨人群准确测量抑郁症状带来了挑战。一种常用的自评式抑郁症状筛查工具,即流行病学研究中心抑郁量表(CES-D),已被翻译成数十种语言,并在数千项研究中使用,但我们对其在干预背景下的因子结构和跨研究、跨时间的不变性的理解仍存在差距。在这项二次分析中,我们从中低收入国家选取了六项近期试验,以:(a)确定 CES-D 的因子结构;(b)评估 CES-D 在治疗组与对照组之间以及随时间推移的测量不变性;(c)检验跨研究不变性;(d)确定可能导致潜在非不变性的项目。我们在每个试验中进行了探索性/验证性因子分析以确定 CES-D 的因子结构,并使用多组验证性分析评估了试验内跨臂/跨时间和跨研究的不变性。在去除积极情感项目后,CES-D 的单维模型在时间和试验内的臂之间表现相当,但在跨试验中表现出不变性,这支持了先前描述该量表在不同人群中的因子结构存在差异的文献。虽然我们的研究结果表明,CES-D 中没有积极情感项目的情况下,是评估我们样本中抑郁症状的有效测量工具,但在使用 CES-D 作为结果测量指标进行荟萃分析和多地点/多国家研究的结果解释时需要谨慎。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

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