MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982620978 · doi:10.2190/crk0-cbn7-qeve-xwpg

The Factor Structure of a Chinese Version of the Geriatric Depression Scale

2005· article· en· W1982620978 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel W. L. Lai, Tak Fung, Clara T. Y. Yuen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeriatric Depression ScaleConfirmatory factor analysisExploratory factor analysisDepression (economics)PsychologyMoodClinical psychologyEthnic groupGerontologyPsychometricsScale (ratio)Chinese peoplePsychiatryMedicineChinaStructural equation modelingAnxietyDepressive symptoms

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the factor structure of a Chinese version of the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) with a sample of community dwelling elderly Chinese in Canada. METHOD: The data for this study were obtained from a larger study examining the health and culture of 2,272 older Chinese aged 55 years and above in seven major Canadian cities. Both exploratory factor analysis using the Principal Component Analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to examine the factor structure of the GDS. RESULTS: The findings in this study indicated a four-factor model: 1) negative mood; 2) positive mood; 3) inferiority and disinterested; 4) uncertainty. The constructs identified were associated with the unique characteristics of older Chinese who are mainly immigrants from other countries. CONCLUSIONS: The findings in this study presented evidence for the applicability of the GDS to older Chinese-Canadians. This instrument would be useful for practitioners to identify potential depression concerns among older adults in this ethnic community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Psychiatry in MedicineSame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207