Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D)

Hepatitis C population: (Clark et al, 2002; n = 116; median age = 46 (range = 27–63) years)

CES-D scores pre and post-treatment:

*SEM = Standard Error of the Mean

Original Validation Study: (Radloff 1977; General population)

• The standard cut-off score suggesting depression > 16 (Sensitivity = 0.95, Specificity = 0.29)

General Population: (Wada et al 2006, n = 2219; age 21–68 years; used to assess depression in the workplace; Japanese sample)

• Cut-off suggested for Japanese general population > 19 points (Sensitivity = 92.7%, Specificity = 91.8%)

Original Validation Study: (Radloff, 1977):

Original Test-Retest by Time and Mode of Administration Indicating Depression:

By mail (Completed by participant):

Reinterview:

Psychiatric Patients: (Roberts et al, 1989; n = 562, study designed to assess possible language and/or cultural differences between groups when assessed with the CES-D)

CES-D Test Re-test Reliabilities for the CES-D Scale by Ethnic/Language Group and Time Interval between Interviews

Original Validation Study: (Radloff, 1977): Symptoms of depression were identified from both clinical literature and factor analytic studies.  Components of the measure include:

• Depressed mood

• Feelings of guilt and worthlessness

• Feelings of helplessness and hopelessness

• Psychomotor retardation

• Loss of appetite

• Sleep disturbance

Meta-analysis of Depression Scales: (Shafe, 2006; n = 91 studies with 51,210 participants)

Two items were more likely to be endorse by African American than white Participants

• People are unfriendly
• People dislike me

One item was more Likely to be endorsed by Female than male participants

• Crying spells

Not statistically assessed

Rhinitis (Chen, 2005; n = 109; mean age = 40 (8.2) years; assessed at baseline and 24 months.

• Baseline CES-D mean (SD) = 10.5 (10)
• 24 month follow-up CESD 11.5 (9.9)
• Observed change* = 1.0 (1.3)
•  Standardized Response Mean (SRM)** = 0.09 (Moderate)

*(score at followup) - (score at baseline)
**(score at follow-up) - (score at baseline)/(SD of observed change)

Chronic Stroke: (Agrell & Dehlin, 1989)

Cancer Patients: (Hann et al, 1999; n = 117; mean age = 53.7 (12.4) years; healthy comparison n = 62, mean age = 53.5 (11.3) years)

CES-D test re-test scores of Cancer patients and healthy comparisons

Community Dwelling Elderly Women: (Bassett et al, 1990; n = 532; mean age = 75 years)

• Adequate Inter-rater reliability (r = .597, p < .001)

Elderly: (Cole et al, 2000; n = 2340; sample all > 65 years old; mean CES-D scale score = 8)

Orthopaedic & Neurological Patients: (Caracciolo & Giaquinto, 2002; n = 101 orthopaedic and 50 neurological patients)

CES-D and Other Common Measures of Impairment Across Diagnostic Categories:

Orthopaedic & Neurological Patients: (Caracciolo & Giaquinto, 2002

• Excellent correlation between CES-D and Ham-D suggesting concurrent validity (r > 0.60)

Chronic SCI: (Miller et al, 2008; n = 55; mean age = 40.6 (12.6) years; ASIA A = 62%, ASIA B = 38%; mean time since injury = 15.2 (11.7) years)

Chronic SCI: (Miller et al, 2008, 2 weeks between assessments)

• Excellent total score test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.87; 95% C.I. 0.79–0.93)

Chronic SCI: (Miller et al, 2008)

• Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91)

Chronic SCI: (Miller et al, 2008)

Chronic SCI: (Anton et al, 2008; n = 48 (ASIA A = 30, ASIA B = 18); mean time since injury = 14.9 years)

Chronic SCI: (Miller et al, 2008)

—Less than 15% of participants scored at one extreme or the another suggesting minimal to no floor or ceiling effect