|
|
|
|
Practical Information
|
Instrument Name:
|
Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form (GDS-SF)
|
Instrument Description:
|
This scale measures depression in the elderly and consists of 15 items. (Ref: 1). There are four dimensions: 1) positive mood; 2) sad mood; 3) boredom, memory problems and energy level; and 4) staying at home. (Ref: 4)
|
Price:
|
Free (public domain)
|
Administration Time:
|
5-7 minutes
|
Publication Year:
|
1986
|
Item Readability:
|
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 3.1. Items are simple sentences, usually less than 15 words each.
|
Scale Format:
|
Yes/No, one page format
|
Administration Technique:
|
Self-administered or interview
|
Scoring and Interpretation:
|
Bolded or Capitalized responses indicate a positive depressive symptom and receive a score of one (1). A “Yes” response is not always indicative of a positive depressive symptom---Items 1, 5, 7, 11, and 13 are “No” answers which receive a positive score. Responses that are not bolded/capitalized do not represent depression and receive a score of zero (0). Scoring Interpretation: Normal (0-4); Mild depression (5-9); Moderate to severe depression (10-15). Therefore, a score of 5 or greater is suggestive of depression. A score of 10 or more is almost always depression.
|
Forms:
|
Long (original form); Multiple languages; GDS-12R for geriatric nursing home and residential patients. (Ref: 3) The Long and Short Form GDS correlate at r=0.84, p<0.001. (Ref: 2) They are also shown to correlate at r=0.66, p<0.01. (Ref: 1) GDS-SF (15 items); GDS-10 (10 items); GDS-4 (4 items); GDS-12R (12 items for geriatric nursing home and residential patients (Ref: 3); Korean language version of the GDS-SF.
|
|
|
Research Contacts
|
Instrument Developers:
|
J. Sheikh and Jerome A. Yesavage (1986)
|
Instrument Development Location:
|
No information found.
|
Instrument Developer Email:
|
No information found.
|
Instrument Developer Website:
|
www.stanford.edu/~yesavage/GDS.html
|
|
|
Annotated Bibliography
|
1. Alden D, Austin C, Sturgeon R. A correlation between the geriatric depression scale long and short forms. J Gerontol 1989 Jul;44(4):P124-5. [PMID: 2738214]
 |
Purpose: To examine appropriateness of GDS Short Form as an alternative for the Long Form. |
|
Sample: 81 elderly subjects volunteered. |
|
Methods: GDS Long Form was given to half of the subjects at Time 1 and GDS Short Form was given to remaining subjects at Time 1. At Time 2, the alternate/remaining form was given to both groups. |
|
Implications: GDS Short Form correlated well with GDS Long Form, but not highly enough to be considered an appropriate substitute. |
2. Burke WJ, Roccaforte WH, Wengel SP. The short form of the Geriatric Depression Scale: a comparison with the 30-item form. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol 1991 Jul-Sep;4(3):173-8. [PMID: 1953971]
|
Purpose: Tests utility of GDS short form in patients with mild dementia of Alzheimer’s type (DAT) |
|
Sample: Sample drawn from 238 patients seen at the University of Nebraska Geriatric Assessment Center over two-year period. |
|
Methods: Longitudinal comparison study of subjects’ scores on GDS Short Form with normal cognitive functioning and with those of mild dementia. |
|
Implications: GDS Short Form is effective as a tool for those who have normal cognitive abilities. However, with subjects of mild dementia, it does not retain the same level of validity. |
3. Sutcliffe C, Cordingley L, Burns A, Mozley CG, Bagley H, Huxley P, Challis D. A new version of the geriatric depression scale for nursing and residential home populations: the geriatric depression scale (residential) (GDS-12R). Int Psychogeriatr. 2000 Jun;12(2):173-81. [PMID: 10937538]
|
Purpose: To develop a new Short Form GDS for older adults living in residential and nursing settings, including those with severe cognitive impairment. |
|
Sample: 308 new residents of 30 nursing and residential homes in northwest England. |
|
Methods: Subjects were given the GDS Short Form (15 item), the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), the Affect Balance Scale (ABS) and the new 12 item GDS (GDS-12R). |
|
Implications: The GDS-12R showed greater internal reliability than the GDS Short Form. The GDS-12R correlated well with another indicator of depressed mood (one item from the ABS). Moderate to severe dementia did not affect the outcomes on the GDS-12R. |
4. Jang Y, Small BJ, Haley WE. Cross-cultural comparability of the Geriatric Depression Scale: comparison between older Koreans and older Americans. Aging Ment Health. 2001 Feb;5(1):31-7. [PMID: 11513010]
|
Purpose: To compare the validity of the GDS Short Form in Korean and US samples of older adults. |
|
Sample: 153 older Korean adults and 459 older American adults from Florida. |
|
Methods: Samples completed the appropriate version of the GDS along with other health measures. |
|
Implications: GDS Short Form exhibited good reliability in both samples. However, the structure was not comparable in the two samples due to cross-cultural differences. |
|
|
top
|
Factors and Norms
|
Factor Analysis Work:
|
Four factors: 1) positive mood; 2) sad mood; 3) boredom, memory problems and energy level; and 4) staying at home. (Ref: 4)
|
Normative Information Availability:
|
Normative information was not specifically reported, but 238 patients were seen at the University of Nebraska Geriatric Assessment Center over two-year period. (Ref: 2)
|
|
|
Reliability Evidence
|
Test-retest:
|
No information found.
|
Inter-rater:
|
No information found.
|
Internal Consistency:
|
Cronbach’s alpha= 0.76. (Ref: 3) Cronbach’s alpha=0.77, split-half reliability=0.73, mean item-total correlation=0.23. (Ref: 4)
|
Alternate Forms:
|
No information found.
|
|
|
Validity Evidence
|
Construct/ Convergent/ Discriminant:
|
The initial sample showed the GDS Short Form was good at differentiating between depressed and nondepressed patients with a high correlation (r=0.84, p<0.001). (Ref: 2) In a randomized trial, there was no difference in the correlation coefficients between elderly outpatients (r=0.58, p<0.01) and inpatients (r=0.57, p<0.01). (Ref: 1)
|
Criterion-related/ Concurrent/ Predictive:
|
The ability of the GDS-SF to distinguish between cognitively intact and mildly demented individuals was tested using a diagnosis of clinical depression as the criterion. For the GDS Short Form, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was shown to have an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.77 (Wilcoxon z=3.14, p<0.002) for the entire sample. The GDS Short Form produced an AUC for nondemented subjects of 0.86 (Wilcoxon z=3.55, p<0.001). For subjects with mild dementia, the AUC was 0.65 (Wilcoxon z=0.54, p nonsignificant). (Ref: 2) These results indicated that the GDS-SF was an effective tool for depression screening for those who are cognitively intact, but less effective for those with mild dementia.
|
Content:
|
No information found.
|
Responsiveness Evidence:
|
No information found.
|
Scale Application in VA Populations:
|
Yes. Initially given to 18 normal adults and 17 adults older than 55 years, with Major Depression or Dysthymia. (Ref: 2)
|
Scale Application in non-VA Populations:
|
No information found.
|
|
|
Comments
|
The Geriatric Depression Scale exists in not one, but several short forms. The first short form (GDS-SF) developed is comprised of half of the 30 items in the original long form. Ten and four item versions of the scale also exist. Though the developers of the GDS-SF anticipated that the shortened version would be more effective than the longer version in cognitively-impaired and/or medically ill respondents. Empirical comparisons of the psychometric properties of the GDS-SF suggest otherwise (see Pamelee, 1989) for an exception). The GDS does not appear to be an effective scale for screening depression in persons with dementia.
A 12-item version of the GDS has been developed for use among residential home populations (GDS-12R). In this version, three “problem items” were dropped from the item pool. In a sample of residents in a long-term care facility, the GDS-12R exhibited better reliability than the GDS-SF. Comparable inter-item consistency was found in cognitively intact and cognitively impaired subsamples. Sensitivity and specificity of the GDS-12R was not compared in these subsamples.
|
Updates
No information found.
|
|
|
