ArticleBMC psychology2023
Rasch analysis of the Chinese version of the clinically useful depression outcome scale in patients with major depressive disorder.
Article in BMC psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- DIF: Concepts, Measurement, and Impact in Patient-Focused Drug Development and Regulatory Decision-Making.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Clinically Useful Depression Outcome Scale (CUDOS) in the Chinese patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) using Rasch analysis.
methodsThe sample consisted of 283 patients with MDD (69% females). The Rasch model was applied to examine the overall fit of the Chinese version of CUDOS and the fit of the 18 items. Dimensionality, item-model fit, differential item functioning (DIF), reliability, ordering of response category and targeting were tested to examine the psychometric properties of the Chinese version of CUDOS.
resultsRasch analysis demonstrated the unidimensionality of the Chinese version of CUDOS. Of the 18 items, three items (item 4, item 5, item 6) showed misfit in the model. After merging item 4 into item 3 and item 6 into item 5, the overall model fit improved. The person separation index (PSI) was 3.0 and the person reliability coefficient was 0.90. No evidence of significant DIF was found when associated with gender and age. No disordered category and threshold of the rating response were observed, which meant the response category setting was reasonable. The mean ability of person was - 0.53.
conclusionThe results suggested that the Chinese version of CUDOS has acceptable psychometric properties. In order to improve the quality and applicability of the Chinese version of CUDOS, the merging of item 4 into item 3 and item 6 into item 5 are suggested.
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.