在美国的一个大型老年人样本中,轻度至中度认知障碍不会对老年抑郁量表产生偏差。

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Quality of Life Research Pub Date : 2024-10-12 DOI:10.1007/s11136-024-03802-0
Antonia V Bennett, Mian Wang
{"title":"在美国的一个大型老年人样本中,轻度至中度认知障碍不会对老年抑郁量表产生偏差。","authors":"Antonia V Bennett, Mian Wang","doi":"10.1007/s11136-024-03802-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is widely used to screen for depression in clinical practice and to assess symptoms of depression in research about older adults. To determine whether the 15-item GDS can be used in adults with dementia, this study investigated whether item- or test-level bias in the GDS-15 is associated with the respondent's level of cognitive impairment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a large U.S. sample of 24,674 adults, we first conducted sample matching procedures between the five groups defined by CDR® Dementia Staging Instrument scores to control for potential confounding effects of common demographic variables. Then, we employed confirmatory factor analysis (for single-group and configural-invariance models only) and item response theory models to test potential differential item/test functioning effects associated with the GDS-15 across the five CDR groups. Practical consequences of the identified biases were quantified using sample-based Cohen's d effect sizes and misclassification rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In general, people with higher CDR scores were older and had fewer years of education. In comparison to the normal cognition group (CDR-0), negligible biases in GDS-15 scores were found for the groups with questionable, mild, or moderate cognitive impairment (CDR-0.5/1/2). For individuals with severe cognitive impairment (CDR-3), their responses were inconsistent with the normal cognition group and their depression scores were significantly biased with a small-to-medium effect size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The GDS-15 can be used to assess depression in individuals with mild or moderate cognitive impairment, but not in individuals with severe cognitive impairment.</p>","PeriodicalId":20748,"journal":{"name":"Quality of Life Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mild to moderate cognitive impairment does not bias the Geriatric Depression Scale in a large US sample of older adults.\",\"authors\":\"Antonia V Bennett, Mian Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11136-024-03802-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is widely used to screen for depression in clinical practice and to assess symptoms of depression in research about older adults. To determine whether the 15-item GDS can be used in adults with dementia, this study investigated whether item- or test-level bias in the GDS-15 is associated with the respondent's level of cognitive impairment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a large U.S. sample of 24,674 adults, we first conducted sample matching procedures between the five groups defined by CDR® Dementia Staging Instrument scores to control for potential confounding effects of common demographic variables. Then, we employed confirmatory factor analysis (for single-group and configural-invariance models only) and item response theory models to test potential differential item/test functioning effects associated with the GDS-15 across the five CDR groups. Practical consequences of the identified biases were quantified using sample-based Cohen's d effect sizes and misclassification rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In general, people with higher CDR scores were older and had fewer years of education. In comparison to the normal cognition group (CDR-0), negligible biases in GDS-15 scores were found for the groups with questionable, mild, or moderate cognitive impairment (CDR-0.5/1/2). For individuals with severe cognitive impairment (CDR-3), their responses were inconsistent with the normal cognition group and their depression scores were significantly biased with a small-to-medium effect size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The GDS-15 can be used to assess depression in individuals with mild or moderate cognitive impairment, but not in individuals with severe cognitive impairment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20748,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality of Life Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03802-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality of Life Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-024-03802-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:老年抑郁量表(GDS)被广泛用于临床实践中的抑郁筛查和老年人研究中的抑郁症状评估。为了确定 15 个项目的 GDS 是否可用于老年痴呆症患者,本研究调查了 GDS-15 的项目或测试水平偏差是否与受访者的认知障碍程度有关:我们首先使用了一个由 24,674 名成年人组成的大型美国样本,在 CDR® 痴呆症分期工具得分所定义的五个组别之间进行了样本匹配程序,以控制常见人口统计学变量的潜在混杂效应。然后,我们采用确证因子分析(仅适用于单组和配置方差模型)和项目反应理论模型来检验 CDR 五个组别中与 GDS-15 相关的潜在差异项目/测试功能效应。使用基于样本的 Cohen's d 效应量和误分类率对已识别偏差的实际后果进行了量化:一般来说,CDR 分数较高的人年龄较大,受教育年限较短。与认知能力正常组(CDR-0)相比,认知能力有问题、轻度或中度受损组(CDR-0.5/1/2)的 GDS-15 分数偏差可以忽略不计。对于严重认知障碍(CDR-3)的人,他们的回答与正常认知组不一致,他们的抑郁评分有明显偏差,影响大小为中小:结论:GDS-15 可用于评估轻度或中度认知障碍患者的抑郁情况,但不能用于评估重度认知障碍患者的抑郁情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Mild to moderate cognitive impairment does not bias the Geriatric Depression Scale in a large US sample of older adults.

Purpose: The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is widely used to screen for depression in clinical practice and to assess symptoms of depression in research about older adults. To determine whether the 15-item GDS can be used in adults with dementia, this study investigated whether item- or test-level bias in the GDS-15 is associated with the respondent's level of cognitive impairment.

Methods: Using a large U.S. sample of 24,674 adults, we first conducted sample matching procedures between the five groups defined by CDR® Dementia Staging Instrument scores to control for potential confounding effects of common demographic variables. Then, we employed confirmatory factor analysis (for single-group and configural-invariance models only) and item response theory models to test potential differential item/test functioning effects associated with the GDS-15 across the five CDR groups. Practical consequences of the identified biases were quantified using sample-based Cohen's d effect sizes and misclassification rates.

Results: In general, people with higher CDR scores were older and had fewer years of education. In comparison to the normal cognition group (CDR-0), negligible biases in GDS-15 scores were found for the groups with questionable, mild, or moderate cognitive impairment (CDR-0.5/1/2). For individuals with severe cognitive impairment (CDR-3), their responses were inconsistent with the normal cognition group and their depression scores were significantly biased with a small-to-medium effect size.

Conclusions: The GDS-15 can be used to assess depression in individuals with mild or moderate cognitive impairment, but not in individuals with severe cognitive impairment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Quality of Life Research
Quality of Life Research 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
8.60%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Quality of Life Research is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to the rapid communication of original research, theoretical articles and methodological reports related to the field of quality of life, in all the health sciences. The journal also offers editorials, literature, book and software reviews, correspondence and abstracts of conferences. Quality of life has become a prominent issue in biometry, philosophy, social science, clinical medicine, health services and outcomes research. The journal''s scope reflects the wide application of quality of life assessment and research in the biological and social sciences. All original work is subject to peer review for originality, scientific quality and relevance to a broad readership. This is an official journal of the International Society of Quality of Life Research.
期刊最新文献
Health-related quality of life due to malaria: a systematic review. Identification of meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening on the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®). Symptom prevalence in patients with advanced heart failure and its association with quality of life and activities of daily living. Longitudinal validation of the PROMIS-16 in a sample of adults in the United States with back pain. Norwegian and Swedish value sets for the EORTC QLU-C10D utility instrument.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1