OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively the reliability and validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale administered by telephone (T-GDS) in patients undergoing outpatient comprehensive geriatric assessment. SUBJECTS: A total of 101 geriatric patients were evaluated in a 1-year period at the outpatient Geriatric Assessment Center of the University of Nebraska Medical Center. METHODS: The 30-item GDS was completed by all patients on three occasions: by telephone several days before their assessment, face-to-face during their assessment visit, and several days later, again by phone. During their assessment, all patients were evaluated by one of three geriatric psychiatrists who were blind to all GDS results. The test-retest reliability of the T-GDS was measured by comparing the results of the two phone interviews. The construct validity of the T-GDS was estimated by comparing the results of the initial T-GDS to the GDS obtained during the comprehensive assessment. The criterion validity of the T-GDS was estimated by comparing the results of the T-GDS with the clinical diagnosis of depression assigned by the psychiatrists. RESULTS: The individual items of the initial T-GDS showed substantial concordance with the second T-GDS (kappa range 0.35-0.75, mean = 0.52), and with the assessment GDS (kappa range 0.29-0.75, mean = 0.52). One item showed evidence of bias when comparing the two T-GDSs, and two items when comparing the initial T-GDS to the GDS done during the assessment. The mean number of symptomatic responses was not significantly different for the T-GDS versus assessment administration but did decline slightly when comparing the two T-GDSs. ROC curve analyses showed good agreement between the clinical diagnosis and the T-GDS. CONCLUSION: The GDS appears to maintain its reliability and validity when administered via telephone and thus may be useful for a variety of epidemiological and clinical purposes.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively the reliability and validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale administered by telephone (T-GDS) in patients undergoing outpatient comprehensive geriatric assessment. SUBJECTS: A total of 101 geriatric patients were evaluated in a 1-year period at the outpatient Geriatric Assessment Center of the University of Nebraska Medical Center. METHODS: The 30-item GDS was completed by all patients on three occasions: by telephone several days before their assessment, face-to-face during their assessment visit, and several days later, again by phone. During their assessment, all patients were evaluated by one of three geriatric psychiatrists who were blind to all GDS results. The test-retest reliability of the T-GDS was measured by comparing the results of the two phone interviews. The construct validity of the T-GDS was estimated by comparing the results of the initial T-GDS to the GDS obtained during the comprehensive assessment. The criterion validity of the T-GDS was estimated by comparing the results of the T-GDS with the clinical diagnosis of depression assigned by the psychiatrists. RESULTS: The individual items of the initial T-GDS showed substantial concordance with the second T-GDS (kappa range 0.35-0.75, mean = 0.52), and with the assessment GDS (kappa range 0.29-0.75, mean = 0.52). One item showed evidence of bias when comparing the two T-GDSs, and two items when comparing the initial T-GDS to the GDS done during the assessment. The mean number of symptomatic responses was not significantly different for the T-GDS versus assessment administration but did decline slightly when comparing the two T-GDSs. ROC curve analyses showed good agreement between the clinical diagnosis and the T-GDS. CONCLUSION: The GDS appears to maintain its reliability and validity when administered via telephone and thus may be useful for a variety of epidemiological and clinical purposes.
Authors: Anette Schrag; Paolo Barone; Richard G Brown; Albert F G Leentjens; William M McDonald; Sergio Starkstein; Daniel Weintraub; Werner Poewe; Olivier Rascol; Cristina Sampaio; Glenn T Stebbins; Christopher G Goetz Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Ian G Stiell; Clif Callaway; Dan Davis; Tom Terndrup; Judy Powell; Andrea Cook; Peter J Kudenchuk; Mohamud Daya; Richard Kerber; Ahamed Idris; Laurie J Morrison; Tom Aufderheide Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Esther M H Muskens; Peter Lucassen; Wilke Groenleer; Chris van Weel; Richard Oude Voshaar; Anne Speckens Journal: Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 4.328
Authors: P Carrete; F Augustovski; N Gimpel; S Fernandez; R Di Paolo; I Schaffer; F Rubinstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Andrew J Petkus; Susan M Resnick; Xinhui Wang; Daniel P Beavers; Mark A Espeland; Margaret Gatz; Tara Gruenewald; Joshua Millstein; Helena C Chui; Joel D Kaufman; JoAnn E Manson; Gregory A Wellenius; Eric A Whitsel; Keith Widaman; Diana Younan; Jiu-Chiuan Chen Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Tom P Aufderheide; Peter J Kudenchuk; Jerris R Hedges; Graham Nichol; Richard E Kerber; Paul Dorian; Daniel P Davis; Ahamed H Idris; Clifton W Callaway; Scott Emerson; Ian G Stiell; Thomas E Terndrup Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2008-05-19 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Donna Wilcock; Gregory Jicha; Deborah Blacker; Marilyn S Albert; Lina M D'Orazio; Fanny M Elahi; Myriam Fornage; Jason D Hinman; Janice Knoefel; Joel Kramer; Richard J Kryscio; Melissa Lamar; Abhay Moghekar; Jillian Prestopnik; John M Ringman; Gary Rosenberg; Abhay Sagare; Claudia L Satizabal; Julie Schneider; Sudha Seshadri; Sandeepa Sur; Russell P Tracy; Sevil Yasar; Victoria Williams; Herpreet Singh; Lidiya Mazina; Karl G Helmer; Roderick A Corriveau; Kristin Schwab; Pia Kivisäkk; Steven M Greenberg Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 16.655