Cited by 307Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesHealth Education and Validation

Validation studies of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale for the antenatal period

Kozinszky, Zoltan, Dudas, Robert B.·2015·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Relatively few studies have focused on the validation of psychometric scales measuring depression during pregnancy. The aim of this review was to critically appraise and review antenatal validation studies of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS).Methods A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI, CINAHL, SCIELO and PsyCINFO for the period 1987-2013.Results Eleven validation studies met the inclusion criteria. The study design varied between studies. Sensitivity and specificity estimates also varied between 64-100% and 73-100%, respectively. The confidence interval estimates also showed a high degree of variability. Our estimates suggest lower positive predictive values in the general population than those reported in the validation study samples. The sensitivity values in validation studies of the EPDS show fairly large variability, ranging from good to acceptable.Limitations Future studies should have larger sample sizes and include both representative and clinical samples and look at the psychometric performance of the EPDS in each trimester.Conclusions Due to differences in study design and variation in the cultural/linguistic adaptation, uncertainty remains regarding the comparability of the sensitivity and specificity estimates of different EPDS versions. Future studies should have larger sample sizes, include both representative and clinical samples, and look at the psychometric performance of the EPDS in each trimester. Reporting quality, especially as regards checks to ensure content validity, should be improved.

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 · 10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.044

Cites

82 of 82 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

2 of the 84 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [28]28. First, M.B., Spitzer, R.L., Gibbon, M., Williams, J.B.W., 2002. Structured clinical interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis I Disorders, research version. In: Biometrics Research, Patient Edition. New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York.
  2. [33]33. Goldberg, D. The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. Maudsley monograph 21. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
  3. [65]65. Spitzer, R.L., Williams, J.B.W., Gibbon, M., First, M.B. User's guide for the structured clinical interview for DSM-III-R. Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Press; 1990.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kozinszky, Z., & Dudas, R. B.
Affiliations
Norfolk and Suffolk NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-05
Volume
176
Pages
95-105
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1969116346
Cited by
307
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 7
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository of the Academy's Library (Library of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, antenatal depression, depression screening, psychometric validation, sensitivity and specificity, positive predictive value, pregnancy, scale adaptation, content validity
MeSH terms
Major Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Pregnancy, Pregnancy Complications, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Validation Studies as Topic

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