[Psychometric properties of French version of the Calgary depression scale for schizophrenics (CDSS)].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Calgary Depression scale for schizophrenia (CDSS) is a 9 items scale, simple, quick and easy to use. It allows a quantitative approach of the subjective (or cognitive) dimension of the depression, and was developed by Addington et al. (1-5). In this work, we studied the psychometric properties of the CDSS in a population of 95 schizophrenic patients, and 41 non schizophrenic depressed patients. The CDSS was compared with commonly used hetero-questionnaires as the Hamilton Depression Scale (HDRS), the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS), the Widlöcher depressive slowness scale (ERD), and auto-questionnaires as the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and the Beck Hopelessness scale (H). In the schizophrenic group, psychotic symptoms were evaluated with the Positive and Negative Symptoms Scale (PANSS), and the extrapyramidal symptoms with the Extrapyramidal symptoms scale (EPRS). In the two populations, the CDSS has similar psychometric properties. The principal component analyses accounts for a unifactorial structure in both groups. In schizophrenics the total score of the CDSS is strongly correlated with the total scores of the HDRS, the MADRS, the ERD, and the G6 item of the PANSS. In non schizophrenic depressed patients, the total score of the CDSS is highly correlated to the total scores of the HDRS, the MADRS and the BDI, with a weaker correlation with the ERD and the H total scores. In these patients, a cut-point strictly superior to 13 may be proposed as a severity criterion for depression in these patients. The internal consistency is satisfactory in both groups, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.82 in schizophrenics and 0.59 in non schizophrenic depressed subjects. In schizophrenics, items C4 (guilty ideas of reference) and C7 (early awakening) are not necessary to the constitution of the scale. In depressed patients, the deletion of item C6 (morning depression) might increase the internal consistency. Inte-raters agreement is high, with weighted kappas all superior to 0.75 in schizophrenics and to 0.61 in depressed patients. Stability over time is good, and the 72 hours test-retest total score of the CDSS is independent from negative and extrapyramidal symptoms. On the other hand, the positive sub-score and the positive factor of the PANSS are correlated to the CDSS total score. The validation of the CDSS is still not complete: sensitivity to change and stability of the factorial structure remain to be explored. Nevertheless, the CDSS is an interesting tool for a quantitative approach of the subjective dimension of depression in both schizophrenic and non schizophrenic patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".