Cited by 81Psychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research Topics

Measuring depression using item response theory: an examination of three measures of depressive symptomatology

Open access
Olino, Thomas M., Yu, Lan, Klein, Daniel N., Rohde, Paul, Seeley, John R., Pilkonis, Paul A., Lewinsohn, Peter M.·2012·International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research

Abstract

Evaluations of assessment instruments using classical test theory typically rely on indices of internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and construct validity. However, the use of models from item response theory (IRT) allows comparison of instruments (and items) in terms of the information they provide and where they provide it along the continuum of severity of the construct being assessed. Such results help to identify the measures most appropriate for specific clinical and research contexts. The present study examined the functioning of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies – Depression (CES‐D) scale, and the nine primary symptoms from the depression module of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia – Children (K‐SADS) using IRT methods. A large sample of adolescents (n = 1709) completed the BDI, CES‐D scale, and K‐SADS. IRT calibration analyses demonstrated that the BDI and CES‐D scale performed well in similar ranges of depressive severity (approximately −1 to +3 standard deviations [SDs]), although the BDI provided more information at higher severity levels and the CES‐D scale at lower severity levels. The K‐SADS depression items, which are dichotomous and focused on clinical disorder, provided the least information that was restricted to the narrowest range (approximately +1 to +3 SDs). This work finds consistency between past rationale for the use of the BDI in clinical samples while using the CES‐D scale in epidemiological studies. The results for the K‐SADS suggest that interview measures may benefit from increasing the number of items and/or response options to collect more psychometric information. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mpr.1348

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Muthén LK Muthén BO Mplus User's Guide 1998–2007 Muthén & Muthén Los Angeles, CA Fifth Edition

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Olino, T. M., Yu, L., Klein, D. N., Rohde, P., Seeley, J. R., Pilkonis, P. A., & Lewinsohn, P. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Stony Brook University (US)
  • Oregon Research Institute (US)
Venue
International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-01-31
Volume
21
Issue
1
Pages
76-85
ISSN
  • 1049-8931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-0657
OpenAlex
W1481972779
Cited by
81
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 1
FWCI
9.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH40501, R01MH040501, K01MH092603, T32MH018951)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
depression measurement, item response theory, Beck Depression Inventory, CES-D, Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia, adolescents, depressive symptoms, information function, psychometric properties
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Retrospective Studies, Sensitivity and Specificity, Students, Reproducibility of Results

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