Construct Validity of an Instrument to Assess Major Depression in Parents in Epidemiologic Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Longitudinal Study of Child Development in Quebec (LSCDQ) is a community study of children that examines the risk factors, such as parental depression, linked to childhood psychopathology and maladaptive functioning. Our goal was to test the construct validity of an instrument to assess major depression in the parents. METHOD: Parents of a representative sample of 2120 infants born in the province of Quebec in 1998 were selected. The major depression instrument was administered to the parents when the infants were aged 29 months. We tested the construct validity of the instrument by examining 1) sex differences in symptoms and prevalence, 2) the rank order of the prevalence of symptoms, 3) the clustering of symptoms, and 4) the association of depression with functional impairment and treatment-seeking behaviour. RESULTS: Depression was twice as common in mothers as in fathers. Most mothers and fathers who reported ever being depressed for 2 or more weeks had also experienced at least 4 additional depression symptoms. The rank order of symptom prevalence was comparable to that found in other studies. At least 50% of parents reported having talked to a professional and that suffering from depression had interfered with their functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The expected sex differences, the rank order of symptom prevalence, the symptom clustering, and the associations with functional impairment and treatment-seeking behaviour support the construct validity of a brief questionnaire on parental 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 | 0.030 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".