Sylvie D Lambert1, Kerrie Clover2, Julie F Pallant1, Benjamin Britton1, Madeleine T King1, Alex J Mitchell1, Gregory Carter2. 1. From Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Psycho-Oncology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Rural Health Academic Centre, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; School of Psychology and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; and University of Leicester, Cancer Studies & Molecular Medicine, Leicester, United Kingdom. 2. From Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Psycho-Oncology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Rural Health Academic Centre, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; School of Psychology and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; and University of Leicester, Cancer Studies & Molecular Medicine, Leicester, United Kingdom. From Ingram School of Nursing, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; Psycho-Oncology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Centre for Translational Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia; Rural Health Academic Centre, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; School of Psychology and Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; and University of Leicester, Cancer Studies & Molecular Medicine, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of different depression self-report scales warrants co-calibration studies to establish relationships between scores from 2 or more scales. The goal of this study was to examine variations in measurement across 5 commonly used scales to measure depression among patients with cancer: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression subscale (HADS-D), Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), and Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-Depression subscale (DASS-D). METHODS: The depression scales were completed by 162 patients with cancer. Participants were also assessed by the major depressive episode module of the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition. Rasch analysis and receiver operating characteristic curves were performed. RESULTS: Rasch analysis of the 5 scales indicated that these all measured depression. The HADS and BDI-II had the widest measurement range, whereas the DASS-D had the narrowest range. Co-calibration revealed that the cutoff scores across the scales were not equivalent. The mild cutoff score on the PHQ-9 was easier to meet than the mild cutoff score on the CES-D, BDI-II, and DASS-D. The HADS-D possible cutoff score was equivalent to cutoff scores for major to severe depression on the other scales. Optimal cutoff scores for clinical assessment of depression were in the mild to moderate depression range for most scales. CONCLUSIONS: The labels of depression associated with the different scales are not equivalent. Most markedly, the HADS-D possible case cutoff score represents a much higher level of depression than equivalent scores on other scales. Therefore, use of different scales will lead to different estimates of prevalence of depression when used in the same sample.
BACKGROUND: The use of different depression self-report scales warrants co-calibration studies to establish relationships between scores from 2 or more scales. The goal of this study was to examine variations in measurement across 5 commonly used scales to measure depression among patients with cancer: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale-Depression subscale (HADS-D), Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), and Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-Depression subscale (DASS-D). METHODS: The depression scales were completed by 162 patients with cancer. Participants were also assessed by the major depressive episode module of the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition. Rasch analysis and receiver operating characteristic curves were performed. RESULTS: Rasch analysis of the 5 scales indicated that these all measured depression. The HADS and BDI-II had the widest measurement range, whereas the DASS-D had the narrowest range. Co-calibration revealed that the cutoff scores across the scales were not equivalent. The mild cutoff score on the PHQ-9 was easier to meet than the mild cutoff score on the CES-D, BDI-II, and DASS-D. The HADS-D possible cutoff score was equivalent to cutoff scores for major to severe depression on the other scales. Optimal cutoff scores for clinical assessment of depression were in the mild to moderate depression range for most scales. CONCLUSIONS: The labels of depression associated with the different scales are not equivalent. Most markedly, the HADS-D possible case cutoff score represents a much higher level of depression than equivalent scores on other scales. Therefore, use of different scales will lead to different estimates of prevalence of depression when used in the same sample.
Authors: John A Gonzales; Annie Chou; Jennifer R Rose-Nussbaumer; Vatinee Y Bunya; Lindsey A Criswell; Caroline H Shiboski; Thomas M Lietman Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Kerrie Clover; Sylvie D Lambert; Christopher Oldmeadow; Benjamin Britton; Madeleine T King; Alex J Mitchell; Gregory Carter Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Chen He; Brooke Levis; Kira E Riehm; Nazanin Saadat; Alexander W Levis; Marleine Azar; Danielle B Rice; Ankur Krishnan; Yin Wu; Ying Sun; Mahrukh Imran; Jill Boruff; Pim Cuijpers; Simon Gilbody; John P A Ioannidis; Lorie A Kloda; Dean McMillan; Scott B Patten; Ian Shrier; Roy C Ziegelstein; Dickens H Akena; Bruce Arroll; Liat Ayalon; Hamid R Baradaran; Murray Baron; Anna Beraldi; Charles H Bombardier; Peter Butterworth; Gregory Carter; Marcos Hortes Nisihara Chagas; Juliana C N Chan; Rushina Cholera; Kerrie Clover; Yeates Conwell; Janneke M de Man-van Ginkel; Jesse R Fann; Felix H Fischer; Daniel Fung; Bizu Gelaye; Felicity Goodyear-Smith; Catherine G Greeno; Brian J Hall; Patricia A Harrison; Martin Härter; Ulrich Hegerl; Leanne Hides; Stevan E Hobfoll; Marie Hudson; Thomas N Hyphantis; Masatoshi Inagaki; Khalida Ismail; Nathalie Jetté; Mohammad E Khamseh; Kim M Kiely; Yunxin Kwan; Femke Lamers; Shen-Ing Liu; Manote Lotrakul; Sonia R Loureiro; Bernd Löwe; Laura Marsh; Anthony McGuire; Sherina Mohd-Sidik; Tiago N Munhoz; Kumiko Muramatsu; Flávia L Osório; Vikram Patel; Brian W Pence; Philippe Persoons; Angelo Picardi; Katrin Reuter; Alasdair G Rooney; Iná S da Silva Dos Santos; Juwita Shaaban; Abbey Sidebottom; Adam Simning; Lesley Stafford; Sharon Sung; Pei Lin Lynnette Tan; Alyna Turner; Henk C P M van Weert; Jennifer White; Mary A Whooley; Kirsty Winkley; Mitsuhiko Yamada; Brett D Thombs; Andrea Benedetti Journal: Psychother Psychosom Date: 2019-10-08 Impact factor: 25.617
Authors: Myrela O Machado; Nicola Veronese; Marcos Sanches; Brendon Stubbs; Ai Koyanagi; Trevor Thompson; Ioanna Tzoulaki; Marco Solmi; Davy Vancampfort; Felipe B Schuch; Michael Maes; Giovanni A Fava; John P A Ioannidis; André F Carvalho Journal: BMC Med Date: 2018-07-20 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Kristen McCarter; Amanda L Baker; Benjamin Britton; Luke Wolfenden; Chris Wratten; Judith Bauer; Sean A Halpin; Gregory Carter; Alison K Beck; Lucy Leigh; Christopher Oldmeadow Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 4.452