Factorial Validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression 10 in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D) Scale's 20-item version is well-validated and reliable for detecting depressive symptoms in adolescents in community samples. A shortened version, CES-D 10 has not been validated with adolescents, but has demonstrated strong psychometrics in other populations. The purpose of this study was to test the factorial validity and internal consistency of the CES-D 10 in adolescents. Using data from 156 adolescents in a previous community-based study, we tested three models of the underlying factors of the CES-D 10 using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) based on factor models validated in other populations. A two-factor model comprised of depressive affect and positive affect was found to be the model that best fits the data (RMSEA = 0.016, CFI = 0.98, GFI = 0.95, AIC = 97.43, BIC = 191.98). These findings are consistent with other studies in adults and provide initial support for the use of the CES-D 10 as a depression screen for adolescents in the community. The utility of a brief screen for adolescents in the community is high, given that many adolescents do not know they need help or are reluctant to seek help. The CES-D 10 could be used as a depression screen for adolescents at a population level and in health clinics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".