Factor structure of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in older patients with major depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Symptomatic anxiety has prognostic significance in major depression. In theory, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) should be a useful instrument for measuring the severity of symptomatic anxiety in late-life depression. However, the dimensional structure of the HADS has not been evaluated in elderly depressed patients; it is not known whether the scale actually functions as a bidimensional measure of anxiety and depression in this population. The purpose of this exploratory study, therefore, was to examine the factor structure of the HADS in older patients with major depression. METHOD: The HADS was completed by 213 patients, aged 60 years or older, with DSM-III-R unipolar major depression. Principal components analysis was performed on the full 14-item HADS and on each of its subscales. RESULTS: Two distinct factors, which corresponded to the instrument's depression and anxiety subscales, emerged. The two-factor structure proved reasonably stable when the study group was randomly divided into two halves. Analysis of the subscales resulted in a single factor for each. The subscales had high internal reliability. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm that the HADS functions as a bidimensional measure of depression and anxiety in older patients with major depression. The results suggest that the HADS is a valid instrument for measuring severity of anxiety, independent of other depressive symptoms, in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".