CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 544Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumPsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Variability in use of cut-off scores and formats on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale – implications for clinical and research practice

Matthey, S., Henshaw, C., Elliott, S., Barnett, B.·2006·Archives of Women's Mental Health
DOI 10.1007/s00737-006-0152-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives i) To highlight the increasing use in the literature of unvalidated cut-off scores on the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS/EPDS), as well as different wording and formatting in the scale; ii) to investigate and discuss the possible impact of using an unvalidated cut-off score; iii) to highlight possible reasons for these 'errors'; and iv) to make recommendations to clinicians and researchers who use the EDS/EPDS.Method A convenience sample of studies that have used unvalidated cut-off scores, or different formatting, are cited as evidence that these types of 'errors' are occurring fairly frequently. Examination of previous data from one of the authors is undertaken to determine the effect of using an unvalidated cut-off score.Summary Many studies report rates of high scorers on the EDS/EPDS using different cut-off scores to the validated ones. The effect of doing this on the overall rate can be substantial. The effect of using different formatting is not known, though excluding items from the EDS/EPDS must also make a substantial difference.Recommendations We recommend that i) the validated score of 13 or more is used when reporting on probable major depression in postnatal English-speaking women, and 15 or more when reporting on antenatal English-speaking women; ii) that the wording used is "13 or more" (or equivalent), and not other terms that may cause confusion (e.g., '>12'; 'more than 12'; '13' etc), iii) if a different cut-off score to the validated one is used, a clear explanation is given as to why this has been done; and iv) that the scale should be worded and formatted as originally described by its authors.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00737-006-0152-x

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • Matthey et al. recommended the use of a validated score of 13 or higher on the EPDS when reporting probable major depression during the postnatal period and a score of 15 or higher during the antenatal period (particularly for English-speaking women).

    “For example, in 2006, Matthey et al.154 recommended the use of a validated score of 13 or higher on the EPDS when reporting probable major depression during the postnatal period and a score of 15 or higher during the antenatal period (particularly for English-speaking women).”

    From Consequences of maternal postpartum depression: A systematic review of maternal and infant outcomes (2019) · cites this paper as [154]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Matthey, S., Henshaw, C., Elliott, S., & Barnett, B.
Affiliations
  • Sydney South West Area Health Service (AU)
  • Keele University (GB)
  • St Thomas' Hospital (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Archives of Women's Mental Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2006-10-02
Volume
9
Issue
6
Pages
309-315
ISSN
  • 1434-1816 (ISSN-L)
  • 1435-1102
DOI
10.1007/s00737-006-0152-x
OpenAlex
W2094627775
Cited by
544
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 42 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 29
FWCI
14.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Archives of Women s Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • 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
Keywords
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, postpartum depression, antenatal depression, cut-off values, depression screening
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Mass Screening, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Pregnancy, Scotland, Depression, Postpartum, Biomedical Research

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