Practice-based depression screening for psychiatry outpatients: Feasibility comparison of two-types of center for epidemiologic studies depression scales

Takeshi Nishiyama, Norio Ozaki, Nakao Iwata

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aims: The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) has been validated to avoid misdiagnoses of major depression in routine psychiatric outpatient settings, but it was reported to be only marginally feasible in these specific settings. A briefer and simpler version, known as the 10-item CES-D, meant to attain adequate feasibility, has been validated in geriatric outpatient settings, but it has not yet been examined in psychiatry outpatient settings. The purpose of the present study was therefore to compare the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the two types of CES-D. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of 86 consecutive outpatients in a psychiatric department in a general hospital. Results: The 10-item CES-D has a higher feasibility than the 20-item CES-D, and its internal consistency, reliability, and validity are almost identical to those of the 20-item CES-D. Conclusions: The 10-item CES-D is the better instrument to use because of the higher feasibility than the 20-item CES-D in psychiatric outpatient settings. The different answer format used in each questionnaire (a yes or no format in the former vs a multiple-choice format in the latter) may influence the feasibility, rather than the number of items.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)632-638
Number of pages7
JournalPsychiatry and clinical neurosciences
Volume63
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-10-2009

Fingerprint

Psychiatry
Epidemiologic Studies
Outpatients
Depression
Reproducibility of Results
Diagnostic Errors
General Hospitals
Geriatrics
Cross-Sectional Studies

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Neuroscience(all)
  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

@article{b2ebcb30c18947c09aed600b4dc4a034,
title = "Practice-based depression screening for psychiatry outpatients: Feasibility comparison of two-types of center for epidemiologic studies depression scales",
abstract = "Aims: The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) has been validated to avoid misdiagnoses of major depression in routine psychiatric outpatient settings, but it was reported to be only marginally feasible in these specific settings. A briefer and simpler version, known as the 10-item CES-D, meant to attain adequate feasibility, has been validated in geriatric outpatient settings, but it has not yet been examined in psychiatry outpatient settings. The purpose of the present study was therefore to compare the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the two types of CES-D. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of 86 consecutive outpatients in a psychiatric department in a general hospital. Results: The 10-item CES-D has a higher feasibility than the 20-item CES-D, and its internal consistency, reliability, and validity are almost identical to those of the 20-item CES-D. Conclusions: The 10-item CES-D is the better instrument to use because of the higher feasibility than the 20-item CES-D in psychiatric outpatient settings. The different answer format used in each questionnaire (a yes or no format in the former vs a multiple-choice format in the latter) may influence the feasibility, rather than the number of items.",
author = "Takeshi Nishiyama and Norio Ozaki and Nakao Iwata",
year = "2009",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1440-1819.2009.02003.x",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
pages = "632--638",
journal = "Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences",
issn = "1323-1316",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Practice-based depression screening for psychiatry outpatients

T2 - Feasibility comparison of two-types of center for epidemiologic studies depression scales

AU - Nishiyama, Takeshi

AU - Ozaki, Norio

AU - Iwata, Nakao

PY - 2009/10/1

Y1 - 2009/10/1

N2 - Aims: The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) has been validated to avoid misdiagnoses of major depression in routine psychiatric outpatient settings, but it was reported to be only marginally feasible in these specific settings. A briefer and simpler version, known as the 10-item CES-D, meant to attain adequate feasibility, has been validated in geriatric outpatient settings, but it has not yet been examined in psychiatry outpatient settings. The purpose of the present study was therefore to compare the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the two types of CES-D. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of 86 consecutive outpatients in a psychiatric department in a general hospital. Results: The 10-item CES-D has a higher feasibility than the 20-item CES-D, and its internal consistency, reliability, and validity are almost identical to those of the 20-item CES-D. Conclusions: The 10-item CES-D is the better instrument to use because of the higher feasibility than the 20-item CES-D in psychiatric outpatient settings. The different answer format used in each questionnaire (a yes or no format in the former vs a multiple-choice format in the latter) may influence the feasibility, rather than the number of items.

AB - Aims: The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) has been validated to avoid misdiagnoses of major depression in routine psychiatric outpatient settings, but it was reported to be only marginally feasible in these specific settings. A briefer and simpler version, known as the 10-item CES-D, meant to attain adequate feasibility, has been validated in geriatric outpatient settings, but it has not yet been examined in psychiatry outpatient settings. The purpose of the present study was therefore to compare the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the two types of CES-D. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted of 86 consecutive outpatients in a psychiatric department in a general hospital. Results: The 10-item CES-D has a higher feasibility than the 20-item CES-D, and its internal consistency, reliability, and validity are almost identical to those of the 20-item CES-D. Conclusions: The 10-item CES-D is the better instrument to use because of the higher feasibility than the 20-item CES-D in psychiatric outpatient settings. The different answer format used in each questionnaire (a yes or no format in the former vs a multiple-choice format in the latter) may influence the feasibility, rather than the number of items.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=70349330829&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=70349330829&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2009.02003.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1440-1819.2009.02003.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 19674384

AN - SCOPUS:70349330829

VL - 63

SP - 632

EP - 638

JO - Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

JF - Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences

SN - 1323-1316

IS - 5

ER -