Measurement invariance testing of the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) across people with and without diabetes mellitus from the NHANES, EMHS and UK Biobank datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of depression is higher among those with diabetes than in the general population. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) is commonly used to assess depression in people with diabetes, but measurement invariance of the PHQ-9 across groups of people with and without diabetes has not yet been investigated. METHODS: Data from three independent cohorts from the USA (n=1,886 with diabetes, n=4,153 without diabetes), Quebec, Canada (n= 800 with diabetes, n= 2,411 without diabetes), and the UK (n=4,981 with diabetes, n=145,570 without diabetes), were used to examine measurement invariance between adults with and without diabetes. A series of multiple group confirmatory factor analyses were performed, with increasingly stringent model constraints applied to assess configural, equal thresholds, and equal thresholds and loadings invariance, respectively. One-factor and two-factor (somatic and cognitive-affective items) models were examined. RESULTS: Results demonstrated that the most stringent models, testing equal loadings and thresholds, had satisfactory model fit in the three cohorts for one-factor models (RMSEA = .063 or below and CFI = .978 or above) and two-factor models (RMSEA = .042 or below and CFI = .989 or above). LIMITATIONS: Data were from Western countries only and we could not distinguish between type of diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide support for measurement invariance between groups of people with and without diabetes, using either a one-factor or a two-factor model. While the two-factor solution has a slightly better fit, the one-factor solution is more parsimonious. Depending on research or clinical needs, both factor structures can be used.
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 | 0.036 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".