Cited by 822Cancer survivorship and carePsychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Measurement of depressive symptoms in cancer patients

Hann, Danette, Winter, Kristin, Jacobsen, Paul·1999·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) is commonly used to measure depressive symptomatology in cancer patients, yet there is little known about the psychometric properties of the measure when applied to a cancer population. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the CES-D with cancer patients. For purposes of comparison, the psychometric properties of the CES-D were assessed both in women undergoing treatment for breast cancer and women with no history of cancer. The CES-D and other study measures were administered to women undergoing treatment for breast cancer on two occasions: prior to treatment and midway through treatment. The measures were also administered to a group of women similar in age to the cancer patients who had no history of any type of cancer. These healthy comparison subjects were also assessed on two separate occasions. The CES-D was found to have good internal consistency, with alpha coefficients > 0.85 for both groups, as well as adequate test-retest reliability in both groups. Construct validity was demonstrated in two ways, via comparisons between the groups and by comparing the CES-D with measures of fatigue, anxiety, and global mental health functioning. The CES-D was established as a valid and reliable measure of depressive symptomatology in this sample of breast cancer patients. This measure may be appropriate for use in clinical psychosocial research with cancer patients, yet further research is needed to evaluate its usefulness in other cancer populations. The importance of measuring psychological symptoms with standard measures that have been validated with cancer patients is highlighted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0022-3999(99)00004-5

Cites

23 of 23 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hann, D., Winter, K., & Jacobsen, P.
Affiliations
  • American Cancer Society (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Hann, Danette
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-05
Volume
46
Issue
5
Pages
437-443
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1804627766
Cited by
822
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 45 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 50 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 41 · 2012: 49
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • 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
depressive symptoms, cancer patients, breast cancer, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, psychometric properties, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, construct validity, fatigue, anxiety, global mental health
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Breast Neoplasms, Depressive Disorder, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Reproducibility of Results, Case-Control Studies

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