Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-9nwgx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-20T16:54:28.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

BRIEF COMMUNICATION.

Criterion validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D): results from a community-based sample of older subjects in the Netherlands

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1997

A. T. F. BEEKMAN
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry of the Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
D. J. H. DEEG
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry of the Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
J. VAN LIMBEEK
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry of the Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A. W. BRAAM
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry of the Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
M. Z. DE VRIES
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry of the Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
W. VAN TILBURG
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry of the Free University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D) has been widely used in studies of late-life depression. Psychometric properties are generally favourable, but data on the criterion validity of the CES-D in elderly community-based samples are lacking. In a sample of older (55–85 years) inhabitants of the Netherlands, 487 subjects were selected to study criterion validity of the CES-D. Using the 1-month prevalence of major depression derived from the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) as criterion, the weighted sensitivity of the CES-D was 100%; specificity 88%; and positive predictive value 13·2%. False positives were not more likely among elderly with physical illness, cognitive decline or anxiety. We conclude that the criterion validity of the CES-D for major depression was very satisfactory in this sample of older adults.

Type
Brief Report
Copyright
© 1997 Cambridge University Press