The development and validation of the Peradeniya Depression Scale (PDS)—A culturally relevant tool for screening of depression in Sri Lanka
Abstract
Background Cultural factors may influence the manner in which a given population interprets and conceptualizes their experience of depression. The aim of this study is to validate the Peradeniya Depression Scale (PDS), a locally created, culturally relevant tool for detection of depression in Sri Lanka.Method Fifty currently depressed patients (diagnosed via the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM Disorders) and 50 (non-depressed) controls were administered the PDS.Results At a score of 10/25 the PDS showed a sensitivity 88.5% and specificity of 85.0% with regards to the detection of depression. Culturally appropriate statements, which referred to international criteria of depression and somatic symptoms, showed significantly higher odds of being positive in depressed patients compared to controls.Limitations The PDS was validated among an outpatient population presenting to a psychiatry clinic in a government hospital in Peradeniya, Sri Lanka. While this is fairly representative of patients presenting to government hospital clinics in this country, further multi-centre studies in different areas of the country maybe useful.Conclusion The PDS is the first screening tool for depression developed and validated in Sri Lanka, written in Sinhalese, taking into account cultural expressions and idioms of the illness. It shows satisfactory sensitivity and specificity as a screening tool for depression. The findings also suggest that it maybe worthwhile for Asian countries to consider adopting scales which are based on internationally accepted diagnostic criteria for depression, but which incorporate expressions that are more appropriate to their own culture and language.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The ROC curve showed that the highest sensitivity and specificity were 80.0% and 80.5%, respectively, with a corresponding SLPPDS cut-off score of between 7 and 8.
“The ROC curve showed that the highest sensitivity and specificity were 80.0 % and 80.5 %, respectively, with a corresponding SLPPDS cut-off score of between 7 and 8 (Abeyasinghe et al., 2012)”
From Developing and validating the Sierra Leone perinatal psychological distress scale through an emic-etic approach (2025) · cites this paper as Abeyasinghe et al., 2012
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 32
- Authors
- Abeyasinghe, D. R. R., Tennakoon, S., & Rajapakse, T. N.
- Affiliations
- University of Peradeniya (LK)
- Corresponding author
- Rajapakse, T.N.
- Venue
- Journal of Affective Disorders
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012-12
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 1-3
- Pages
- 143-149
- ISSN
- 0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2065000904
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 1.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Keywords
- depression screening, culturally adapted instruments, Sinhalese language, Sri Lanka, diagnostic accuracy, idioms of distress, somatic symptoms
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Culture, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Outpatients, Psychiatric Department, Hospital, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sri Lanka
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