Cited by 155Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

The Development, Standardization, and Initial Validation of the Chicago Multiscale Depression Inventory

Nyenhuis, David L., Luchetta, Tracy·1998·Journal of Personality Assessment

Abstract

Current self-report depression scales may overestimate depression symptoms in medical patients by including items measuring symptoms inherent to many medical conditions. They may therefore reflect a patient's medical rather than psychological state. We present the Chicago Multiscale Depression Inventory (CMDI), a factorially derived self-report depression scale that includes Mood, Evaluative, and Vegetative subscales. The CMDI and its subscales were designed to be used separately or combined; we posit that the nonvegetative CMDI subscales are the most accurate means of examining depression in medical patients. In this study we outline the development, standardization, and initial validation of the CMDI, a multistep process that required a total sample of 1,062 adults. We show the CMDI and each of its subscales to be internally consistent, reliable, and valid. Confirmatory factor analysis supports the CMDI factor structure. Finally, we report standardization scores for each of the CMDI scales, derived from an age-, race- and gender-stratified standardization sample of 420 adults.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327752jpa7002_14

Cites

7 of 7 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?

  • High scores on the CMDI reflect reports of a high level of depression and decreases in CMDI score correspond with the reporting of a reduction in depressive symptoms.

    “High scores on the CMDI reflect reports of a high level of depression and decreases in CMDI score correspond with the reporting of a reduction in depressive symptoms.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nyenhuis, D. L., & Luchetta, T.
Affiliations
Rush University Medical Center (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality Assessment
Published
1998-04
Volume
70
Issue
2
Pages
386-401
ISSN
  • 0022-3891 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7752
OpenAlex
W2062761396
Cited by
155
References
7
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
5.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k04ns001055-03, 5r01ns022128-07)
  • Office of Naval Research
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K04 NS01055, R01 NS22128)
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
medical patients, mood, vegetative symptoms, factor structure, scale standardization, internal consistency, psychometric validation
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Depressive Disorder, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Psychological Tests, Psychometrics, United States, Reproducibility of Results

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