Reliability and validity of the center for epidemiologic studies depression scale in patients with systemic sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Reported rates of depressive symptoms in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) are high. No depression assessment tools, however, have been validated for patients with SSc. Our objective was to assess the internal consistency reliability, convergent validity, and structural/construct validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in patients with SSc. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, multicenter study of 470 SSc patients. Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and structural/construct validity with confirmatory factor analysis. RESULTS: Internal consistency reliability was good for the overall CES-D scale (alpha = 0.88) and for its 4 factors (alpha = 0.67-0.88). Correlations of the CES-D total score were -0.73 with mental health, -0.36 with physical health, 0.41 with disability, and 0.44 with pain. The 4-factor model originally found in the general population and validated for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (depressed affect, somatic/vegetative, [lack of] positive affect, and interpersonal factors) fit the data well, as did a second-order version of the same model with an overarching depression factor that loaded onto each of the 4 first-order factors. The 4-factor model fit the SSc data better than alternative models. CONCLUSION: Internal consistency reliability and convergent validity were good, the 4-factor structure reported in the general population was replicated, and a second-order model with an overarching depression factor fit well. These findings indicate that the CES-D is a valid and reliable measure of depressive symptoms for patients with SSc.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".