BACKGROUND: There is no reliable and valid self-report measure of depressive symptoms for people with learning disabilities. AIMS: To develop a scale for individuals with learning disability, and a supplementary scale for carers. METHOD: Items were generated from a range of assessment scales and through focus groups. A draft scale was piloted and field tested using matched groups of people with or without depression, and their carers. The scale was also administered to a group without learning disabilities for criterion validation. RESULTS: The Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD) differentiated depression and non-depression groups, correlated with the Beck Depression Inventory - II (r=0.88), had good test-retest reliability (r=0.97) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.90), and a cut-off score (13) yielded 96% sensitivity and 90% specificity. The Carer Supplement was also reliable (r=0.98; alpha=0.88), correlating with the GDS-LD (r=0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Both scales appear useful for screening, monitoring progress and contributing to outcome appraisal.
BACKGROUND: There is no reliable and valid self-report measure of depressive symptoms for people with learning disabilities. AIMS: To develop a scale for individuals with learning disability, and a supplementary scale for carers. METHOD: Items were generated from a range of assessment scales and through focus groups. A draft scale was piloted and field tested using matched groups of people with or without depression, and their carers. The scale was also administered to a group without learning disabilities for criterion validation. RESULTS: The Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD) differentiated depression and non-depression groups, correlated with the Beck Depression Inventory - II (r=0.88), had good test-retest reliability (r=0.97) and internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha=0.90), and a cut-off score (13) yielded 96% sensitivity and 90% specificity. The Carer Supplement was also reliable (r=0.98; alpha=0.88), correlating with the GDS-LD (r=0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Both scales appear useful for screening, monitoring progress and contributing to outcome appraisal.
Authors: Sigan L Hartley; Anna J Esbensen; Rebecca Shalev; Lori B Vincent; Iulia Mihaila; Paige Bussanich Journal: J Ment Health Res Intellect Disabil Date: 2015-04-06
Authors: Paul Willner; Andrew Jahoda; John Rose; Biza Stenfert-Kroese; Kerenza Hood; Julia K Townson; Jacqueline Nuttall; David Gillespie; David Felce Journal: Trials Date: 2011-02-09 Impact factor: 2.279