Oral oncology · 2017
Psychometric validation of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale in Head and Neck Cancer patients.
СтатьяВалидационное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chhabria K S, Carnaby G D
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) is a 20-item tool developed to screen for depression in the general population. To psychometrically evaluate and validate the CES-D scale for use in head and neck cancer (HNC) patients.
METHODS: The CES-D was applied to 130 subjects at onset of radiation treatment and 3-months following treatment. Analysis was conducted via face and content validity using two expert raters, internal consistency was applied using Cronbach's alpha, test retest reliability comparing baseline to 3-month application, concurrent validity was performed against the FACT-H&N and Pain Disability Index, construct validity was conducted via exploratory factor analysis.
RESULTS: The sample was predominantly male receiving chemo radiation. Face validity was strong (α = 0.85). Significant difference was found in the mean score between depressed (CES-D cut point ≥ 16) vs. non-depressed (t = -15.84, p = .00) (95% CI = -17.18, -13.33). Internal consistency of the scale was high (α = 0.84). Test retest reliability (p < .001) showed moderate-strong correlations (0.51), however was not sensitive to change in this sample across the study time period. Concurrent validity was strong (r = -0.77, 0.51). Factor analysis at baseline explained 54.92% of variance, with 3 distinct factors; depressed affect, somatic/retarded activity, and positive affect. In contrast to general populations, the factor 'disturbed interpersonal skill' was not retained.
CONCLUSION: Results confirm the reliability and validity of the CES-D as a measure of depression in HNC populations. Proposed cut off scores remain stable but scale responsiveness suggests caution when evaluating change over time in this population.
METHODS: The CES-D was applied to 130 subjects at onset of radiation treatment and 3-months following treatment. Analysis was conducted via face and content validity using two expert raters, internal consistency was applied using Cronbach's alpha, test retest reliability comparing baseline to 3-month application, concurrent validity was performed against the FACT-H&N and Pain Disability Index, construct validity was conducted via exploratory factor analysis.
RESULTS: The sample was predominantly male receiving chemo radiation. Face validity was strong (α = 0.85). Significant difference was found in the mean score between depressed (CES-D cut point ≥ 16) vs. non-depressed (t = -15.84, p = .00) (95% CI = -17.18, -13.33). Internal consistency of the scale was high (α = 0.84). Test retest reliability (p < .001) showed moderate-strong correlations (0.51), however was not sensitive to change in this sample across the study time period. Concurrent validity was strong (r = -0.77, 0.51). Factor analysis at baseline explained 54.92% of variance, with 3 distinct factors; depressed affect, somatic/retarded activity, and positive affect. In contrast to general populations, the factor 'disturbed interpersonal skill' was not retained.
CONCLUSION: Results confirm the reliability and validity of the CES-D as a measure of depression in HNC populations. Proposed cut off scores remain stable but scale responsiveness suggests caution when evaluating change over time in this population.