ABSTRACTBackground:A single-item depression measure may not be adequate in capturing the complex entity of mental health, despite wide use of this indicator in community studies. This study evaluated the accuracy of a single-question depression measure in comparison to two composite indices–the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) and the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).Materials and methods:A total of 800 elderly participants ranging from 60 to 89 years of age and residing in Seoul were recruited using a multistage sampling scheme in 2015. The survey was conducted by trained interviewers with a constructed questionnaire. Reliability and validity measures such as the Kappa index, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AUC were used to evaluate the accuracy of the single question measure. Socio-demographic group differences in accuracy were compared by age, sex, marital status, education, employment, and financial status.Results:The prevalence of depression by a single-question measure was much lower than those of CESD and GDS (5.5%, 12.3%, and 12.1%, respectively). The sensitivity of the single-item measure, based on CESD and GDS, was extremely low at 30.6% and 36.1%. In the subgroup analysis, however, there was a marked educational discrepancy in all accuracy measures; in sensitivity, people with a university degree or higher showed about 2.4 times higher sensitivity than those having only a primary school education.Conclusions:The results show that a single-question depression measure should be used with caution. In addition, the single-question measure could substantially underestimate depression among the risk group of older adults.
Preliminary Study of the Reliability and Validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in Lao PDR
