R Haringsma1, G I Engels, A T F Beekman, Ph Spinhoven. 1. Section of Clinical and Health Psychology, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands. haringsma@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The criterion validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D) was assessed in a group of elderly Dutch community-residents who were self-referred to a prevention program for depression. METHODS: Paper-and-pencil administration of the CES-D to 318 elders (55-85 years). Criterion validity was evaluated with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a clinical diagnostic interview based on DSM-IV. Sensitivity and specificity for various cut-off scores of CES-D were compared with the DSM-IV major depressive disorder (MDD) and with clinically relevant depression (CRD), a composite diagnosis of MDD, subthreshold depression or dysthymia. Furthermore the characteristics of true versus false positives were analyzed. RESULTS: For MDD, the optimal cut-off score was 25, (sensitivity 85%, specificity 64%, and positive predicted value of 63%). For CRD, the optimal cut-off was 22 (sensitivity 84%, specificity 60%, and positive predicted value 77%). True positives, MDD and CRD, reported significantly more anxiety symptomatology and more co-morbid anxiety disorders, false positives reported more previous depressive episodes. CONCLUSIONS: The criterion validity of the CES-D for MDD and CRD was satisfactory in this semi-clinical sample of elders. Subjects scoring >/=25 constitute a target group for further diagnostic assessment in order to determine appropriate treatment. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
BACKGROUND: The criterion validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D) was assessed in a group of elderly Dutch community-residents who were self-referred to a prevention program for depression. METHODS: Paper-and-pencil administration of the CES-D to 318 elders (55-85 years). Criterion validity was evaluated with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a clinical diagnostic interview based on DSM-IV. Sensitivity and specificity for various cut-off scores of CES-D were compared with the DSM-IV major depressive disorder (MDD) and with clinically relevant depression (CRD), a composite diagnosis of MDD, subthreshold depression or dysthymia. Furthermore the characteristics of true versus false positives were analyzed. RESULTS: For MDD, the optimal cut-off score was 25, (sensitivity 85%, specificity 64%, and positive predicted value of 63%). For CRD, the optimal cut-off was 22 (sensitivity 84%, specificity 60%, and positive predicted value 77%). True positives, MDD and CRD, reported significantly more anxiety symptomatology and more co-morbid anxiety disorders, false positives reported more previous depressive episodes. CONCLUSIONS: The criterion validity of the CES-D for MDD and CRD was satisfactory in this semi-clinical sample of elders. Subjects scoring >/=25 constitute a target group for further diagnostic assessment in order to determine appropriate treatment. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: Hilde P A van der Aa; Mirke Hoeben; Linda Rainey; Ger H M B van Rens; Hilde L Vreeken; Ruth M A van Nispen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Spyros Kolovos; Judith E Bosmans; Johanna M van Dongen; Birre van Esveld; Dorcas Magai; Annemieke van Straten; Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis; Kirsten M van Steenbergen-Weijenburg; Klaas M Huijbregts; Harm van Marwijk; Heleen Riper; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-03-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: David Paunesku; Justin Ellis; Joshua Fogel; Sachiko A Kuwabara; Jackie Gollan; Tracy Gladstone; Mark Reinecke; Benjamin W Van Voorhees Journal: J Cogn Behav Psychother Date: 2008-09-01
Authors: Patrick G Bissett; Gordon D Logan; Nelleke C van Wouwe; Christopher M Tolleson; Fenna T Phibbs; Daniel O Claassen; Scott A Wylie Journal: J Neural Transm (Vienna) Date: 2015-09-09 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: Joshua W Kirton; Susan M Resnick; Christos Davatzikos; Michael A Kraut; Vonetta M Dotson Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-10-11 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Maria C Raven; Lina Tieu; Christopher T Lee; Claudia Ponath; David Guzman; Margot Kushel Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Rafael Samper-Ternent; Soham Al Snih; Mukaila A Raji; Kyriakos S Markides; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-09-22 Impact factor: 5.562