Screening for Depression Among Older Adults Referred to Home Care Services: A Single-Item Depression Screener Versus the Geriatric Depression Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults requiring home care service have a high risk of depression. Instruments for detecting depression among older adults, however, are often too long and detailed for easy administration by nontrained staff in large service-based settings.This study examined the measurement properties (test—retest reliability, concurrent validity, and cross-modality correspondence) of a single-item screener for depressive symptoms among older adults receiving home care services. Reliability was assessed ( n = 65) by administering the single-item depression screener to the same participants on two occasions 7 days apart. Validity was assessed ( n = 191) by comparing depressed participants from the single-item depression screener versus Geriatric Depression Scale (criterion measure). Responses to the single-item depression screener administered by telephone and face-to-face interview were also compared. Findings suggest that the single-item depression screener has fair levels of reliability, validity, and cross-modality correspondence and could be used among home care recipients as a screening tool, provided that depression status is confirmed via in-depth questionnaires, interviews, or a clinical diagnosis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".