首页> 外文期刊>Psychological assessment >Measuring Depression Over Time ... or not? Lack of Unidimensionality and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance in Four Common Rating Scales of Depression
【24h】

Measuring Depression Over Time ... or not? Lack of Unidimensionality and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance in Four Common Rating Scales of Depression

机译:随时间测量抑郁...还是没有?四种常见抑郁量表的缺乏一维性和纵向测量不变性

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In depression research, symptoms are routinely assessed via rating scales and added to construct sum-scores. These scores are used as a proxy for depression severity in cross-sectional research, and differences in sum-scores over time are taken to reflect changes in an underlying depression construct. To allow for such interpretations, rating scales must (a) measure a single construct, and (b) measure that construct in the same way across time. These requirements are referred to as unidimensionality and measurement invariance. We investigated these 2 requirements in 2 large prospective studies (combined n = 3,509) in which overall depression levels decrease, examining 4 common depression rating scales (1 self-report, 3 clinician-report) with different time intervals between assessments (between 6 weeks and 2 years). A consistent pattern of results emerged. For all instruments, neither unidimensionality nor measurement invariance appeared remotely tenable. At least 3 factors were required to describe each scale, and the factor structure changed over time. Typically, the structure became less multifactorial as depression severity decreased (without however reaching unidimensionality). The decrease in the sum-scores was accompanied by an increase in the variances of the sum-scores, and increases in internal consistency. These findings challenge the common interpretation of sum-scores and their changes as reflecting 1 underlying construct. The violations of common measurement requirements are sufficiently severe to suggest alternative interpretations of depression sum-scores as formative instead of reflective measures. We discuss the possible causes of these violations such as response shift bias, restriction of range, and regression to the mean.
机译:在抑郁症研究中,通常通过评定量表对症状进行评估,并将其加和以构建总分。这些分数在横断面研究中用作抑郁症严重程度的替代指标,总和得分随时间的差异反映了潜在抑郁症结构的变化。为了进行这种解释,等级量表必须(a)衡量一个单一的结构,并且(b)跨时间以相同的方式衡量该结构。这些要求称为一维性和测量不变性。我们在2项大型前瞻性研究(合并n = 3,509)中调查了这2项要求,这些研究中总体抑郁水平有所降低,检查了4种常见的抑郁量表(1个自我报告,3个临床医生报告),两次评估之间的时间间隔不同(介于6周之间)和2年)。出现了一致的结果模式。对于所有仪器而言,单维性或测量不变性都似乎遥不可及。描述每个量表至少需要3个因素,并且因素结构会随着时间而变化。通常,随着抑郁症严重程度的降低(但没有达到一维性),该结构的多因素作用降低。和得分的减少伴随着和得分的方差的增加和内部一致性的增加。这些发现挑战了总和及其变化的普遍解释,因为总和及其变化反映了1种基本结构。常见测量要求的违反严重到足以建议将抑郁总和的替代解释解释为形成性的度量,而不是反思性的度量。我们讨论了这些违规行为的可能原因,例如响应偏移,范围限制和均值回归。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号