Premium
The criterion validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale: a systematic review
Author(s) -
Wancata J.,
Alexandrowicz R.,
Marquart B.,
Weiss M.,
Friedrich F.
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
acta psychiatrica scandinavica
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.849
H-Index - 146
eISSN - 1600-0447
pISSN - 0001-690X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2006.00888.x
Subject(s) - geriatric depression scale , blinding , cinahl , criterion validity , generalizability theory , cochrane library , medline , medicine , scale (ratio) , clinical psychology , center for epidemiologic studies depression scale , depression (economics) , psychology , gerontology , psychometrics , psychiatry , meta analysis , construct validity , depressive symptoms , psychological intervention , pathology , anxiety , clinical trial , law , macroeconomics , developmental psychology , political science , economics , quantum mechanics , physics
Objective: The objective was to provide a systematic review of the screening accuracy of both versions of the Geriatric Depressions Scale (GDS‐30, GDS‐15). Method: An electronic search was performed by using Medline, Embase, Cinahl, Psyndex and the Cochrane library. The selection and examination of papers were performed by two reviewers independently. Results: Among the 42 papers included, important methodological aspects such as sampling methods or blinding of research workers often were not reported. For both GDS versions, similar validity indices were found (GDS‐30: sensitivity 0.753, specificity 0.770; GDS‐15: sensitivity 0.805, specificity 0.750). Using comparative studies based on the identical samples, both GDS versions showed significantly better validity indices than the ‘Yale‐1‐question’ screen, but were similar to the ‘Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale’ (CES‐D). Conclusion: The GDS does not show a better criterion validity than the CES‐D, but methodological limitations of primary studies hamper the generalizability of pooled analyses.