Cross‐cultural equivalence in depression assessment: Japan–Europe–North American study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Worldwide use of the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD) presupposes that depression symptomatology can be measured the same way across countries but no empirical study has yet examined this issue. We therefore examined cross-cultural consistency of factor structure of HRSD. METHOD: A 17-item HRSD data were sought for 5,185 individuals diagnosed with major depression in Japan, Europe and North America. Candidate factor structures were obtained with simultaneous component analysis (SCA) across the three cultures. They were then submitted to multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). RESULTS: According to SCA, 3-, 4- or 5-factor solutions were found to optimally and adequately summarize the variables for all the three populations. When submitted to CFA, the 5-factor solution was the best fitting and the most parsimonious: they were 'anhedonia/retardation,''guilt/agitation,''bodily symptoms,''insomnia' and 'appetite.' CONCLUSION: Common underlying factors exist for HRSD among Japanese, European and American patients with major depression.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".