Diagnosis and Measurement of Adolescent Depression: A Review of Commonly Utilized Instruments
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
We surveyed 160 recent studies of adolescent depression (publication dates ranged from March 1996 to August 2000) and identified 33 different diagnostic and symptom measurement instruments being used by various investigators. We also found that more than one in three of the studies measuring depressive symptom severity in adolescents relied on instruments designed for use with adults. We then reviewed in detail the design features and psychometric properties of the 12 instruments most commonly used in studies of adolescent depression and attempted to characterize their strengths and weaknesses. Our main conclusions are as follows: Too many different instruments are being used by investigators, presumably due to a lack of consensus as to which are the most valid and reliable tools. Instruments designed for use in adults and never validated in adolescent populations are frequently used with no evidence for their developmental sensitivity. Many studies are using instruments that demonstrate substantial weaknesses in validity and/or reliability. The need for a parsimonious, easily administered, valid, and reliable tool(s) to diagnose and measure symptom severity in adolescent depression has not yet been met.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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