MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081833462 · doi:10.1002/gps.2369

The factor structure of a Chinese Geriatric Depression Scale‐SF: use with alone elderly Chinese in Shanghai, China

2009· article· en· W2081833462 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel W. L. Lai, Hongmei Tong, Qun Zeng, Wenyan Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaDepression (economics)Geriatric Depression ScaleChinese peopleGerontologyGeriatricsScale (ratio)MedicinePsychologyPsychiatryDepressive symptomsGeographyAnxietyCartography

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 living alone in Shanghai, China. METHOD: Data were obtained between August and October 2008 through face-to-face interviews, using a structured survey questionnaire, from a random sample of 228 Chinese who were 60 years and older and living alone in one of the aging communities in Shanghai, China. Depressive symptoms were measured by a 15-item Chinese version Geriatric Depression Scale. Both exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to examine the factor structure of the GDS. RESULTS: Over 30% of the elderly Chinese living alone reported having symptoms that indicated that they had mild or an above mild level of depression. Furthermore, the findings also indicated that the depression symptoms were loaded into a four-factor model: 1) positive and negative mood; 2) energy level; 3) inferiority; and 4) disinterested, explaining over 58% of the total variance of depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The findings presented evidence of the applicability of the GDS to elderly Chinese living alone in China. This instrument would be useful for identifying potential depression concerns among elderly Chinese living alone.

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)0.000
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations39
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Geriatric PsychiatrySame topicAging and Gerontology ResearchFrench-language works237,207