Cited by 299Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychological Testing and Assessment

The criterion validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES‐D) in a sample of self‐referred elders with depressive symptomatology

Haringsma, R., Engels, G. I., Beekman, A. T. F., Spinhoven, Ph.·2004·International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry

Abstract

Background: The criterion validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES‐D) was assessed in a group of elderly Dutch community‐residents who were self‐referred to a prevention program for depression. Methods: Paper‐and‐pencil administration of the CES‐D to 318 elders (55–85 years). Criterion validity was evaluated with the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), a clinical diagnostic interview based on DSM‐IV. Sensitivity and specificity for various cut‐off scores of CES‐D were compared with the DSM‐IV major depressive disorder (MDD) and with clinically relevant depression (CRD), a composite diagnosis of MDD, subthreshold depression or dysthymia. Furthermore the characteristics of true versus false positives were analyzed. Results: For MDD, the optimal cut‐off score was 25, (sensitivity 85%, specificity 64%, and positive predicted value of 63%). For CRD, the optimal cut‐off was 22 (sensitivity 84%, specificity 60%, and positive predicted value 77%). True positives, MDD and CRD, reported significantly more anxiety symptomatology and more co‐morbid anxiety disorders, false positives reported more previous depressive episodes. Conclusions: The criterion validity of the CES‐D for MDD and CRD was satisfactory in this semi‐clinical sample of elders. Subjects scoring ≥25 constitute a target group for further diagnostic assessment in order to determine appropriate treatment. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/gps.1130

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Haringsma, R., Engels, G. I., Beekman, A. T. F., & Spinhoven, P.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Haringsma, R.
Venue
International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-05-17
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
558-563
ISSN
  • 0885-6230 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1166
OpenAlex
W2031940914
Cited by
299
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 20
FWCI
17.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, criterion validity, depression screening, older adults, major depressive disorder, subthreshold depression, dysthymia, cut-off values, sensitivity and specificity, anxiety comorbidity, MINI interview
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Diagnostic Errors, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Referral and Consultation, Sensitivity and Specificity, Geriatric Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review