Cited by 88Digital Mental Health InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Brief self-rated screening for depression on the Internet

Donker, Tara, van Straten, Annemieke, Marks, Isaac, Cuijpers, Pim·2010·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background The Internet offers promising possibilities for the quick screening of depression for treatment and research purposes. This paper aims to validate three self-rated measures to screen for depression on the Internet: SID (single-item depression scale), CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale) and K10 (Kessler psychological distress scale).Methods Of the 502 subjects aged 18-80 who rated the SID, CES-D and K10 measures on the Internet, 157 (31%) subjects were also interviewed by telephone using the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (C)IDI) for DSM-IV-disorders.Results Cronbach's alpha for both web self-rated measures CES-D and K10 was 0.90. The SID correlated 0.68 (P<0.001) with the CES-D and with the K10. The CES-D correlated 0.84 with the K10 (P<0.001). Subjects with a DSM-IV diagnosis for any depressive disorder had significantly higher means (P<0.001) on the three self-rated measures for depressive symptoms than subjects without a diagnosis of any depressive disorder. Using any depressive disorder as the gold standard, the area under the curve (AUC) of the SID was 0.71 (95% CI: 0.63-0.79), which was significantly lower than the AUC of the CES-D (AUC: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.77-0.90, P=0.003) and of the K10 (AUC: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.73-0.88, P=0.0024). The AUCs for the K10 and CES-D did not differ significantly from each other.Limitations The CIDI interviews were not recorded, so inter-rater reliability could not be calculated.Conclusions The CES-D and K10 are reliable, valid tools for care providers to quickly screen depressive patients on the Internet and for researchers to collect data.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2009.07.013

Cites

54 of 54 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

2 of the 56 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Donker, T., van Straten, A., Marks, I., & Cuijpers, P.
Affiliations
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-05
Volume
122
Issue
3
Pages
253-259
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2164760639
Cited by
88
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 7
FWCI
10.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
depression screening, internet-based screening, CES-D, Kessler K10, psychological distress, psychometric validation, area under the curve
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Reproducibility of Results, Area Under Curve, Internet, Young Adult

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