Rapson Gomez1, Suzanne McLaren2. 1. Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia. 2. Federation University Australia, Ballarat, Victoria, Australia s.mclaren@federation.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: For the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) ratings, the study examined support for a bifactor model, and also the internal consistency reliability and external validity of the factors in this model. METHOD: Participants (N = 1,178) were older adults from the general community who completed the CES-D. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis of their ratings indicated support for the bifactor model. For this model, the general factor explained most of the covariance in the scores of the CES-D items for Depressed Affect, Somatic Symptoms and Retarded Activity, and Interpersonal Difficulties items. Most of the covariance in the scores of the Positive Affect (PA) scale was explained by its own specific factor. Additional analyses showed support for internal consistencies and external validities of general factors based on all the CES-D items, and when PA items were excluded, and also the PA-specific factor. DISCUSSION: The findings support the use of a total CES-D score without the PA items and also the concurrent use of the PA scale score.
OBJECTIVES: For the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) ratings, the study examined support for a bifactor model, and also the internal consistency reliability and external validity of the factors in this model. METHOD:Participants (N = 1,178) were older adults from the general community who completed the CES-D. RESULTS: Confirmatory factor analysis of their ratings indicated support for the bifactor model. For this model, the general factor explained most of the covariance in the scores of the CES-D items for Depressed Affect, Somatic Symptoms and Retarded Activity, and Interpersonal Difficulties items. Most of the covariance in the scores of the Positive Affect (PA) scale was explained by its own specific factor. Additional analyses showed support for internal consistencies and external validities of general factors based on all the CES-D items, and when PA items were excluded, and also the PA-specific factor. DISCUSSION: The findings support the use of a total CES-D score without the PA items and also the concurrent use of the PA scale score.
Authors: Nan Dou; Dixin Xie; Xiang Gao; Natalia Palacios; Luis M Falcon; Katherine L Tucker; Muzi Na Journal: J Nutr Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.798