|
|
|
|
Practical Information
|
Instrument Name:
|
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Short Forms (CESD-SF)
|
Instrument Description:
|
The instruments evaluated are various short forms of the original CESD: CESD-10 (10 item), Revised Form (8 item), Iowa Form (11 item), and Boston Form (10 item). They measure current depressive symptoms in the general population.
|
Price:
|
CESD-10: free (public domain)
|
Administration Time:
|
No information found.
|
Publication Year:
|
Boston and Iowa forms (1993); CESD-10 (1994); revised forms (no information)
|
Item Readability:
|
Items on the short forms are drawn from the CESD. They contain simple vocabulary and short sentences.
|
Scale Format:
|
Iowa form: 3 response options;
Boston form: 2 response options;
8-item form: 2 response options;
CESD-10: 4 response options.
|
Administration Technique:
|
Self-report or interview
|
Scoring and Interpretation:
|
Boston and 8-item forms are yes/no, scored positive for a depression endorsement; Iowa form is scored on a 3-point scale; CESD-10 is scored on a 4-point scale. Scoring interpretation: For the CESD-10, scores >=10 mean probable depression (Ref: 2); for the 8 item form, scores >=6 mean probable depression. (Ref: 3) Interpretation not reported for the Boston and Iowa forms.
|
Forms:
|
CESD-10, Revised Form, Iowa Form, Boston Form, original CES-D. Iowa and Boston forms correlated with original CES-D at r>0.83. (Ref: 1)
|
|
|
Research Contacts
|
Instrument Developers:
|
Boston and Iowa forms: F. Kohout, L. Berkman, D. Evans, and J. Cornoni-Huntley;
CESD-10 form: Elena M. Andresen, J. Malmgren, W. Carter, D. Patrick; C. Turvey, R. Wallace and R. Herzog.
|
Instrument Development Location:
|
CESD-10:
Elena M. Andresen, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Epidemiology
Department of Community Health
Saint Louis University School of Public Health
Salus Center
3545 Lafayette Ave. Suite 300
St. Louis, MO 63104
|
Instrument Developer Email:
|
See Instrument Developers
|
Instrument Developer Website:
|
No information found.
|
|
|
Annotated Bibliography
|
1. Carpenter JS, Andrykowski MA, Wilson J, Hall LA, Rayens MK, Sachs B, Cunningham LL. Psychometrics for two short forms of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 1998 Sep-Oct;19(5):481-94. [PMID: 9782864]
 |
Purpose: To evaluate psychometric properties of two shorter forms (Boston and Iowa) of the CES-D |
|
Sample: 832 women from 6 different populations |
|
Methods: Method varied between mailed survey, written survey, and in-home interview. |
|
Implications: The Iowa form is preferred over the Boston form when a short version of the CES-D is needed. |
2. Andresen EM, Malmgren JA, Carter WB, Patrick DL. Screening for depression in well older adults: evaluation of a short form of the CES-D (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale). Am J Prev Med. 1994 Mar-Apr;10(2):77-84. [PMID: 8037935]
|
Purpose: To prepare and test a short form of the CES-D |
|
Sample: 1,206 well older adults in an HMO system |
|
Methods: CESD-10 surveys were mailed at baseline, the original CES-D at retest one to four weeks later along with the CESD-10, and a follow-up CESD-10 was mailed 12 months after the baseline. |
|
Implications: The CESD-10 showed good reliability in order to be used in place of the CES-D. |
3. Turvey CL, Wallace RB, Herzog R. A revised CES-D measure of depressive symptoms and a DSM-based measure of major depressive episodes in the elderly. Int Psychogeriatr 1999 Jun;11(2):139-48. [PMID: 11475428]
|
Purpose: To examine the psychometric properties of two new short versions of common depression scales, including the CES-D and a short form CIDI (Composite International Diagnostic Interview). |
|
Sample: 6,133 persons aged 70 and older |
|
Methods: Both measures were completed as part of the Asset and Health Dynamics Study of the Oldest Old (AHEAD). Subjects aged 70 to 79 were interviewed by phone and those over 80 years were interviewed in person. The 8 items in this scale are taken from the 10 item Boston Form. |
|
Implications: The CES-D shorter form has internal consistency and factor structure similar to the original. Subjects who scored higher on the CES-D shorter form reported higher rates of antidepressant use. |
|
|
top
|
Factors and Norms
|
Factor Analysis Work:
|
Factor analysis indicated that the Boston and Iowa forms retain the original CESD’s four factors, with both explaining over 60% of the variance: 1) depressive affect; 2) somatic symptoms; 3) positive affect; 4) interpersonal relations. However, the pattern of items for each factor was not the same as noted by previous research for mixed gender samples. In samples of women, 12 of the 20 original CESD items loaded (>0.42) on the Depressed Affect factor with eigenvalue=6.70. Therefore, further exploratory analysis was performed and found a single factor for which 17 of the 20 items loaded. (Ref: 1) Principal component factor analysis shows that the CESD-10 collapses into two factors of positive affect and negative affect. (Ref: 2) Principal components factor analysis determined that the 8-item form collapses into two factors of depressed mood (36% of the variance) and somatic complaints (29% of the variance), which accounts for 65% of the total variance. (Ref: 3)
|
Normative Information Availability:
|
Although normative information was not specifically reported, the following was reported: 1) 832 women from 6 different populations (Ref: 1); 2) 1,206 well older adults in an HMO system (Ref: 2); 3) 6,133 persons aged 70 and older (Ref: 3).
|
|
|
Reliability Evidence
|
Test-retest:
|
CESD-10: Test-retest correlations ranged r=0.21 to 0.84, with an overall correlation of r=0.71, at an average time interval of 22 days. (Ref: 2)
|
Inter-rater:
|
No information found.
|
Internal Consistency:
|
Iowa form Cronbach’s alpha=0.81; Boston form Cronbach’s alpha=0.73 (Ref: 1); 8-item form Cronbach’s alpha=0.78. (Ref: 3)
|
Alternate Forms:
|
No information found.
|
|
|
Validity Evidence
|
Construct/ Convergent/ Discriminant:
|
Self-reported stress was related to depressive symptoms on the CESD-10 (r=0.43), while as positive affect scores decreased, depressive symptom scores increased (r=-0.63). (Ref: 2)
|
Criterion-related/ Concurrent/ Predictive:
|
No information found.
|
Content:
|
No information found.
|
Responsiveness Evidence:
|
No information found.
|
Scale Application in VA Populations:
|
No information found.
|
Scale Application in non-VA Populations:
|
No information found.
|
|
|
Comments
|
The original CES-D and its short forms all appear to reliably screen patients for “depressive symptoms.” Clinicians have found this information useful for research as well as clinical care. The CES-D and its short forms are best for discrimination (screening) at a designated cutoff score, not for change measurement.
Overall Usefulness for a Certain Population: Most of the available data were collected from elderly patients; reliability and validity of the CES-D and its short forms for use with younger patients are less established. Studies suggest equivalent performance of the CES-D for men and women.
Advantages: The cutoff score for the original CES-D has been validated with the DSM-III criteria for clinical depression, and the cutoff scores for the short forms appear to discriminate consistently with the cutoff score for the original.
Disadvantages: Factor structures for both the original CES-D and the short forms is inconsistent across validation studies. Also, some constructs measured by the short forms appear different from those measured by the original. Moreover, no direct validation of the short forms against actual psychiatric diagnosis is reported.
Recommendation: Marginal; the original CES-D is best supported, both theoretically and empirically. If a shorter version is desired, studies suggest performance of the Iowa short form most closely matches that of the original CES-D. In any case, these scales should be used for discrimination only, not for change measurement, and only used in conjunction with other evidence of clinical depression, such as actual diagnosis or scores on other validated depression instruments.
|
Updates
No information found.
|
|
|
