Equivalence of French and English Language Versions of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) among Caregivers of Persons with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) is among the most widely used depression screening measures. Existing research suggests a higher-order factor structure of responses among older adults (factors labelled depressive affect, absence of well-being, somatic symptoms, and interpersonal affect, each loading upon a second-order depression factor). The current study extends this research to ascertain whether this structure is equivalent (or invariant) between the English and French versions of the CES-D. Findings suggest that the number and relative contribution of each factor is similar for both language groups. Furthermore, interpretation of CES-D items is statistically indistinguishable for 16 of 20 items within this randomly identified, national sample of caregivers of persons with dementia. Results of this study support the higher-order factor structure of this measure and provide data in support of the reliability of responses. Furthermore, findings support the use of the CES-D in cross-cultural and comparative research with English- and French-speaking adults.
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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".