Cited by 66Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

Application of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale among first-visit psychiatric patients: a new approach to improve its performance

Furukawa, T, Hirai, T, Kitamura, T, Takahashi, K·1997·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Although the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) is an internationally popular self-rating scale for depression both in community and clinical settings, extant literature concerning its validity has several shortcomings. The present paper aimed to overcome these problems.Methods We applied newer assessment technology of receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analyses and stratum-specific likelihood ratios (SSLRs) and cross-validated the results in the 'training' and 'testing' data sets of 591 patients representing various clinical settings all over Japan.Results The ROC analyses demonstrated that the CES-D had moderate convergent and discriminant validity to detect major depressive episodes among first-visit psychiatric patients. Selecting single optimal cutoffs, however, failed to arrive at consistent results across various settings. The efficacy of the instrument was most conveniently transportable into clinical practices when converted into SSLRs, which were 0.35 (95% CI: 0.25-0.49) for the score range 0-29, 2.3 (1.8-3.1) for the score range 30-49, and 11.7 (3.1-44.0) for the scores above 50. In addition, the SSLRs proved to be generalizable not only across various clinical settings in our sample but also across psychiatric, primary care and community samples in the published reports.Conclusion Clinicians and clinical epidemiologists can apply the SSLRs of the CES-D to various settings to estimate the probability of suffering from a major depressive episode in a convenient and intuitive manner.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0165-0327(97)00079-7

Cites

61 of 61 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
Furukawa, T., Hirai, T., Kitamura, T., & Takahashi, K.
Affiliations
  • Nagoya City University (JP)
  • National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry (JP)
Corresponding author
Furukawa, T
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1997-10
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
1-13
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2049183731
Cited by
66
References
61
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.27
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 › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, CES-D, major depressive episode, depression screening, cut-off values, receiver operating characteristic, convergent and discriminant validity
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Humans, Japan, Outpatient Clinics, Hospital, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Department, Hospital, Psychometrics, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Comorbidity, Likelihood Functions

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