ReviewHeliyon2020
Patterns of item score and total score distributions on depression rating scales in the general population: evidence and mechanisms.
Review in Heliyon, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical EFT for individuals with visual impairment: effects on psychological wellbeing and subjective visual functioning.Health psychology and behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- Factors Influencing Frequency of Depressive Experiences Among Married Working Women in South Korea.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The GAD-7 and the PHQ-8 exhibit the same mathematical pattern of item responses in the general population: analysis of data from the National Health Interview Survey.BMC psychology · 2021Article
- Mathematical pattern of Kessler psychological distress distribution in the general population of the U.S. and Japan.BMC psychiatry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research has demonstrated that item scores and total scores on depression rating scales exhibit common distribution shapes in a general population. Specifically, responses to depressive symptom items show a proportional relationship between response options, except for the lower end option, whereas total scores exhibit an exponential distribution, except for the lower end of the distribution. The common mathematical distributions of item scores and total scores may help explain the scoring mechanism of a depression rating scale. This paper, therefore, discusses how the distribution shapes are generated. Two conditions are assumed: (1) each individual's latent degree of depression forms an exponential distribution in a general population, and (2) the threshold of each depressive symptom forms a normal distribution. A simulation study applying the two assumptions revealed that simulated total scores follow an exponential distribution through a strong linear relationship between an individual's latent trait of depression and simulated total scores. Furthermore, the strong linear relationship between total scores and the individual's latent trait of depression supports the prevailing view that total scores on a Likert type scale tend toward interval data. Regarding item scores, an analysis of boundary curves, which divide the distribution of total scores by each item score, revealed that the lower end option and the next option distances have a trade-off relationship, and the remaining option distances have a proportional relationship across all items. In conclusion, the assumption that a latent trait of depression follows an exponential distribution helps explain the mathematical pattern of item response and total score distribution. Furthermore, the item score and total score distribution shapes on depression rating scales may serve as evidence of the level of measurement.
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.