Emily Stockings1, Louisa Degenhardt2, Yong Yi Lee3, Cathrine Mihalopoulos4, Angus Liu2, Megan Hobbs5, George Patton6. 1. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 22-32 King Street, Randwick, New South Wales 2031, Australia. Electronic address: e.stockings@unsw.edu.au. 2. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 22-32 King Street, Randwick, New South Wales 2031, Australia. 3. Queensland Centre for Mental Health Research (QCMHR), School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston Road, Herston, Queensland 4006, Australia. 4. Deakin Health Economics Unit, Population Health Strategic Research Centre, Deakin University, 211 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia. 5. Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety and Depression (CRUfAD), University of Newcastle, St Vincent׳s Hospital, 390 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst 2010, Australia. 6. Centre for Adolescent Health, The Royal Children׳s Hospital, 50 Flemington Road, Parkville, Victoria 3025, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression symptom screening scales are often used to determine a clinical diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) in prevention research. The aim of this review is to systematically examine the reliability, validity and diagnostic utility of commonly used screening scales in depression prevention research among children and adolescents. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the electronic databases PsycINFO, PsycEXTRA and Medline examining the reliability, validity and diagnostic utility of four commonly used depression symptom rating scales among children and adolescents: the Children׳s Depression Inventory (CDI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Center for Epidemiologic Studies - Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale (RADS). We used univariate and bivariate random effects models to pool data and conducted metaregression to identify and explain causes of heterogeneity. RESULTS: We identified 54 studies (66 data points, 34,542 participants). Across the four scales, internal reliability was 'good' (pooled estimate: 0.89, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.86-0.92). Sensitivity and specificity were 'moderate' (sensitivity: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.84; specificity: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.74-0.83). For studies that used a diagnostic interview to determine a diagnosis of MDD, positive predictive power for identifying true cases was mostly poor. Psychometric properties did not differ on the basis of study quality, sample type (clinical vs. nonclinical) or sample age (child vs. adolescent). LIMITATIONS: Some analyses may have been underpowered to identify conditions in which test performance may vary, due to low numbers of studies with adequate data. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used depression symptom rating scales are reliable measures of depressive symptoms among adolescents; however, using cutoff scores to indicate clinical levels of depression may result in many false positives.
BACKGROUND:Depression symptom screening scales are often used to determine a clinical diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) in prevention research. The aim of this review is to systematically examine the reliability, validity and diagnostic utility of commonly used screening scales in depression prevention research among children and adolescents. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the electronic databases PsycINFO, PsycEXTRA and Medline examining the reliability, validity and diagnostic utility of four commonly used depression symptom rating scales among children and adolescents: the Children׳s Depression Inventory (CDI), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Center for Epidemiologic Studies - Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale (RADS). We used univariate and bivariate random effects models to pool data and conducted metaregression to identify and explain causes of heterogeneity. RESULTS: We identified 54 studies (66 data points, 34,542 participants). Across the four scales, internal reliability was 'good' (pooled estimate: 0.89, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.86-0.92). Sensitivity and specificity were 'moderate' (sensitivity: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.76-0.84; specificity: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.74-0.83). For studies that used a diagnostic interview to determine a diagnosis of MDD, positive predictive power for identifying true cases was mostly poor. Psychometric properties did not differ on the basis of study quality, sample type (clinical vs. nonclinical) or sample age (child vs. adolescent). LIMITATIONS: Some analyses may have been underpowered to identify conditions in which test performance may vary, due to low numbers of studies with adequate data. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly used depression symptom rating scales are reliable measures of depressive symptoms among adolescents; however, using cutoff scores to indicate clinical levels of depression may result in many false positives.
Authors: Nichole R Kelly; Lauren B Shomaker; Courtney K Pickworth; Mariya V Grygorenko; Rachel M Radin; Anna Vannucci; Lisa M Shank; Sheila M Brady; Amber B Courville; Marian Tanofsky-Kraff; Jack A Yanovski Journal: Appetite Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 3.868
Authors: Kate Ryan Kuhlman; Jessica J Chiang; Julienne E Bower; Michael R Irwin; Steve W Cole; Ronald E Dahl; David M Almeida; Andrew J Fuligni Journal: J Abnorm Child Psychol Date: 2020-01
Authors: Y Y Lee; J J Barendregt; E A Stockings; A J Ferrari; H A Whiteford; G A Patton; C Mihalopoulos Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Glenda M MacQueen; Benicio N Frey; Zahinoor Ismail; Natalia Jaworska; Meir Steiner; Ryan J Van Lieshout; Sidney H Kennedy; Raymond W Lam; Roumen V Milev; Sagar V Parikh; Arun V Ravindran Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356