Emmanuelle Bélanger1, Kali S Thomas1,2, Richard N Jones3, Gary Epstein-Lubow3,4, Vincent Mor1,2. 1. Center for Gerontology and Healthcare Research, Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI, United States. 2. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI, United States. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School, Providence, RI, United States. 4. Hebrew SeniorLife, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the measurement properties of the self-reported Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and its 10-item observer version (PHQ-10OV) among nursing home residents. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments for national cohorts of Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries who were newly admitted or incident long-stay residents in 2014-2015 at US nursing homes (NHs) certified by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Statistical analyses included examining internal reliability with McDonald's omega, structural validity with confirmatory factor analysis, and hypothesis testing for expected gender differences and criterion validity with descriptive statistics. The Chronic Condition Warehouse depression diagnoses were used as an administrative reference standard. RESULTS: Both the PHQ-9 and PHQ-10OV had good internal reliability with omega values above 0.85. The self-reported scale yielded good model fit for a one-factor solution, while the PHQ-10OV had slightly poorer fit and a lower standardized factor loading on the additional irritability item. Both scales appear sufficiently one-dimensional given that somatic items had higher factor loading on a general depression factor than on a somatic subfactor. We were unable to obtain expected gender differences on the PHQ-10OV scale. The PHQ-9 and PHQ-10OV were both highly specific but had poor sensitivity compared with an administrative reference standard. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-9 appears to be a valid and promising measurement instrument for research about depression among NH residents, while the validity of the PHQ-10OV should be examined further with a structured psychiatric interview as a stronger criterion standard.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the measurement properties of the self-reported Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and its 10-item observer version (PHQ-10OV) among nursing home residents. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of Minimum Data Set 3.0 assessments for national cohorts of Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries who were newly admitted or incident long-stay residents in 2014-2015 at US nursing homes (NHs) certified by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Statistical analyses included examining internal reliability with McDonald's omega, structural validity with confirmatory factor analysis, and hypothesis testing for expected gender differences and criterion validity with descriptive statistics. The Chronic Condition Warehouse depression diagnoses were used as an administrative reference standard. RESULTS: Both the PHQ-9 and PHQ-10OV had good internal reliability with omega values above 0.85. The self-reported scale yielded good model fit for a one-factor solution, while the PHQ-10OV had slightly poorer fit and a lower standardized factor loading on the additional irritability item. Both scales appear sufficiently one-dimensional given that somatic items had higher factor loading on a general depression factor than on a somatic subfactor. We were unable to obtain expected gender differences on the PHQ-10OV scale. The PHQ-9 and PHQ-10OV were both highly specific but had poor sensitivity compared with an administrative reference standard. CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-9 appears to be a valid and promising measurement instrument for research about depression among NH residents, while the validity of the PHQ-10OV should be examined further with a structured psychiatric interview as a stronger criterion standard.
Authors: M Luppa; C Sikorski; T Luck; L Ehreke; A Konnopka; B Wiese; S Weyerer; H-H König; S G Riedel-Heller Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2010-12-30 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Christine M Ulbricht; Anthony J Rothschild; Jacob N Hunnicutt; Kate L Lapane Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2017-05-23 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Jon D Elhai; Ateka A Contractor; Marijo Tamburrino; Thomas H Fine; Marta R Prescott; Edwin Shirley; Phillip K Chan; Renee Slembarski; Israel Liberzon; Sandro Galea; Joseph R Calabrese Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Kurt Kroenke; Jingwei Wu; Zhangsheng Yu; Matthew J Bair; Jacob Kean; Timothy Stump; Patrick O Monahan Journal: Psychosom Med Date: 2016 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.312
Authors: Jeanne A Teresi; Robert Abrams; Douglas Holmes; Mildred Ramirez; Carol Shapiro; Joseph P Eimicke Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2002 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Yiyang Yuan; Kate L Lapane; Jonggyu Baek; Bill M Jesdale; Christine M Ulbricht Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2019-07-04 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Barbara Resnick; Kimberly Van Haitsma; Ann Kolanowski; Elizabeth Galik; Marie Boltz; Jeanette Ellis; Liza Behrens; Karen Eshraghi Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 7.802
Authors: Carol A Bova; Bill M Jesdale; Attah Mbrah; Lynn Botelho; Kate L Lapane Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.850
Authors: Melanie L Bozzay; Lan Jiang; Andrew R Zullo; Melissa R Riester; Jacob A Lafo; Zachary J Kunicki; James L Rudolph; Caroline Madrigal; Rachel Clements; Sebhat Erqou; Wen-Chih Wu; Stephen Correia; Jennifer M Primack Journal: J Geriatr Cardiol Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 3.327
Authors: Dongjuan Xu; Yaqi Wang; Ming Li; Meng Zhao; Zhenhua Yang; Kefang Wang Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-09-24 Impact factor: 4.614