ArticlePloS one2018
Assessing the dimensionality of the CES-D using multi-dimensional multi-level Rasch models.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Associations Between Outcome Resilience and Sociodemographic Factors, Childhood Trauma, Personality Dimensions and Self-Rated Health in Middle-Aged Adults.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2022Article
- Measurement Invariance in the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) Scale among English-Speaking Whites and Asians.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Temporal Patterns of Infant Regulatory Behaviors in Relation to Maternal Mood and Soothing Strategies.Child psychiatry and human development · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe CES-D is a widely used depression screening instrument. While numerous studies have analysed its psychometric properties using exploratory and various kinds of confirmatory factor analyses, only few studies used Rasch models and none a multidimensional one.
methodsThe present study applies a multidimensional Rasch model using a sample of 518 respondents representative for the Austrian general population aged 18 to 65. A one-dimensional model, a four-dimensional model reflecting the subscale structure suggested by [1], and a four-dimensional model with the background variables gender and age were applied.
resultsWhile the one-dimensional model showed relatively good fit, the four-dimensional model fitted much better. EAP reliability indices were generally satisfying and the latent correlations varied between 0.31 and 0.88. In the analysis involving background variables, we found a limited effect of the participants' gender. DIF effects were found unveiling some peculiarities. The two-items subscale Interpersonal Difficulties showed severe weaknesses and the Positive Affect subscale with the reversed item wordings also showed unexpected results.
conclusionsWhile a one-dimensional over-all score might still contain helpful information, the differentiation according to the latent dimension is strongly preferable. Altogether, the CES-D can be recommended as a screening instrument, however, some modifications seem indicated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.