ArticlePloS one2023
Psychometric characteristics of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Revised in a population of Polish university students.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the Korean Version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Revised in Korean Adolescents.Psychiatry investigation · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Revised (CESD-R) has already been validated on the Polish population. However, the structure of the scale obtained at that time was not confirmed by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in subsequent studies on the Polish sample and measurement invariance for gender was not performed. The purpose of this article is to present the results of psychometric analyses to verify the structure of the CESD-R in a university student sample. An online cross-sectional study was conducted with 1519 university students (March/April 2021). The dataset was randomly divided into three subsets to perform principal component analysis (PCA, Subset 1) and CFA for CESD-R versions with different numbers of factors and items (Subsets 2 and 3). Measurement invariance for gender was verified for the whole sample. PCA pointed to a three-factor solution that was analyzed in the subsequent CFA. Due to high correlation coefficients between factors, further steps were taken using only one factor. For CFA, 20-, 18- and 9-item versions of the CESD-R were used, but the 9-item version obtained the best model fit parameters and was used to evaluate the measurement invariance for gender, which was confirmed. The 9-item CESD-R has the best model fit compared to other versions of this scale and is gender invariant. Further research is needed to verify the criterion validity of this shortened scale.
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.