BACKGROUND: In an 11-country European collaboration, 14 population-based surveys included 21,724 subjects aged > or = 65 years. Most participating centres used the Geriatric Mental State (GMS), but other measures were also used. AIMS: To derive from these instruments a common depression symptoms scale, the EURO-D, to allow comparison of risk factor profiles between centres. METHOD: Common items were identified from the instruments. Algorithms for fitting items to GMS were derived by observation of item correspondence or expert opinion. The resulting 12-item scale was checked for internal consistency, criterion validity and uniformity of factor-analytic profile. RESULTS: The EURO-D is internally consistent, capturing the essence of its parent instrument. A two-factor solution seemed appropriate: depression, tearfulness and wishing to die loaded on the first factor (affective suffering), and loss of interest, poor concentration and lack of enjoyment on the second (motivation). CONCLUSIONS: The EURO-D scale should permit valid comparison of risk-factor associations between centres, even if between-centre variation remains difficult to attribute.
BACKGROUND: In an 11-country European collaboration, 14 population-based surveys included 21,724 subjects aged > or = 65 years. Most participating centres used the Geriatric Mental State (GMS), but other measures were also used. AIMS: To derive from these instruments a common depression symptoms scale, the EURO-D, to allow comparison of risk factor profiles between centres. METHOD: Common items were identified from the instruments. Algorithms for fitting items to GMS were derived by observation of item correspondence or expert opinion. The resulting 12-item scale was checked for internal consistency, criterion validity and uniformity of factor-analytic profile. RESULTS: The EURO-D is internally consistent, capturing the essence of its parent instrument. A two-factor solution seemed appropriate: depression, tearfulness and wishing to die loaded on the first factor (affective suffering), and loss of interest, poor concentration and lack of enjoyment on the second (motivation). CONCLUSIONS: The EURO-D scale should permit valid comparison of risk-factor associations between centres, even if between-centre variation remains difficult to attribute.
Authors: Teresa Bago d'Uva; Maarten Lindeboom; Owen O'Donnell; Eddy van Doorslaer Journal: J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: John R M Copeland; Aartjan T F Beekman; Arjan W Braam; Michael E Dewey; Philippe Delespaul; Rebecca Fuhrer; Christopher Hooijer; Brian A Lawlor; Sirkka-Liisa Kivela; Anthony Lobo; Halgrimur Magnusson; Anthony H Mann; Ingeborg Meller; Martin J Prince; Friedel Reischies; Marc Roelands; Ingmar Skoog; Cesare Turrina; Marten W deVries; Kenneth C M Wilson Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Jeanne A Teresi; Katja Ocepek-Welikson; Marjorie Kleinman; Joseph P Eimicke; Paul K Crane; Richard N Jones; Jin-Shei Lai; Seung W Choi; Ron D Hays; Bryce B Reeve; Steven P Reise; Paul A Pilkonis; David Cella Journal: Psychol Sci Q Date: 2009