ArticleResearch in nursing & health2022
Factor analysis of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale in American Indian women.
Article in Research in nursing & health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) is widely used to assess depressive symptoms in the general population. It lacks validation for widespread use within the American Indian population, however. To address this gap, we explored and confirmed the factor structure of the CES-D among a community sample of southeastern American Indian women. We analyzed data from a sample of 150 American Indian women ages 18-50 from a southeastern tribe who had complete responses on the CES-D as part of a larger cross-sectional, community-engaged study. We performed exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess the measure's validity. We examined EFA models ranging from one to five factors, with the four-factor structure yielding the best overall model fit (CFI = 1.00, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.03). Differences between the four-factor EFA-retained structure from our sample and Radloff's four-factor structure emerged. Only the interpersonal factor was common to both factor structures. Our study findings confirm the validity of the original four-factor structure of the CES-D for younger adult American Indian women in the southeast. Contrasting findings with the EFA-retained structure, however, provide a more nuanced interpretation of our results.
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.