Psychometric properties and validity of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in a population attending an HIV clinic in Cali, Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Depression in people living with HIV/AIDS is associated with poor health outcomes. Despite this, assessment of depressive symptoms is not a routine clinical practice in the care of people with HIV in Colombia. One reason could be the lack of validated depression screening scales for this population. OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability and construct validity of the 20- and 10-item-Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale in patients attending an HIV clinic in Cali, Colombia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A non-random sample of 105 adults was enrolled. The 20 item-CES-D (CES-D-20) scale was administered twice: At baseline and 2-4 weeks later. We calculated the Cronbach's alpha coefficient and the intraclass correlation coefficient. In addition, we used an exploratory and confirmatory factorial analysis, as well as the item response theory to assess the validity of the scale. RESULTS: Most participants were men (73%), with a mean age of 40 years, 53% of whom had not completed high school. Cronbach's coefficients were 0.92 and 0.94 at baseline and at the second interview, respectively. The intraclass correlation was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.72-0.88). Although all 20 items loaded distinctly in 4 factors, 5 items did not load as expected. The structure factor of the CES-D-20 was not confirmed, as 4 items had poor goodness of fit. The CES-D-10 appeared to perform better in this population. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the reliability and validity of the CES-D-10 instrument to screen for depressive symptoms in people living with HIV in Colombia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".