The Beck Depression Inventory-II: Testing for Measurement Equivalence and Factor Mean Differences Across Hong Kong and American Adolescents
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working within the framework of a confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) model, this study adds another dimension to construct validation of both the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996 Beck, A., Steer, R. and Brown, G. 1996. Beck Depression Inventory manual, , 2nd ed., San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]) and a Chinese version of the BDI-II (C-BDI-II; Chinese Behavioral Sciences Society, 2000 Chinese Behavioral Sciences Society. 2000. The Chinese version of the Beck Depression Inventory, Second Edition. Licensed Chinese translation. The Psychological Corporation, New York: Harcourt Brace. [Google Scholar]). Specifically, we tested for measurement equivalence of the C-BDI-II with the original BDI-II across Hong Kong (N = 1771) and American (N = 501) adolescents, respectively. Provided with evidence of measurement equivalence, we then tested for differences in the latent factor means (i.e., subscale levels) of three first-order factors of negative attitude, performance difficulty, and somatic elements and one second-order factor of general depression. All procedures were based on analyses of mean and covariance structures (MACS) that took into account both the incompleteness and non-normality of the data. Findings revealed sound evidence of measurement equivalence of the C-BDI-II and BDI-II factorial structures, and latent factor means that pointed to higher levels of depressive symptoms for Hong Kong adolescents than for their American counterparts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it