MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384499006 · doi:10.4085/1062-6050-0558.22

Validation and Clinical Utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale as Depression Screening Tools in Collegiate Student-Athletes

2023· article· en· W4384499006 on OpenAlexaff
Lindsey Keenan, Yvette Ingram, Branden Green, Rachel Daltry, Sebastian Harenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Athletic Training · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSport Psychology and Performance
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepression (economics)AthletesScale (ratio)Context (archaeology)Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression ScaleClinical psychologyPsychologyPatient Health QuestionnaireMental healthPsychiatryPsychometricsMedicinePhysical therapyDepressive symptomsAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The National Athletic Trainers' Association recommends including mental health screening measures as part of the preparticipation examination for all student-athletes (SAs). Despite this recommendation, most mental health screening tools have not been validated in the SA population. OBJECTIVE: To validate and examine the clinical utility of 2 depression screening tools in the collegiate SA population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mixed-methods study. SETTING: Two Northeastern United States university athletics programs. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: A total of 881 (men = 426, 48.4%; women = 455, 51.6%; mean age = 19.7 ± 1.4 years) National Collegiate Athletic Association Division II collegiate SAs completed the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D); 290 SAs participated in a Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Depression symptoms were measured using 2 self-report depression screening tools, the PHQ-9 and CES-D, during the fall preparticipation examination. The SAs were selected using a random stratified sampling technique to participate in a Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview as the reference standard comparison for the receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTS: A cutoff score of 6 on the PHQ-9 corresponded to 78% sensitivity, 75% specificity, 17.3% positive predictive value, 98.1% negative predictive value (NPV), 3.2 positive likelihood ratio (+LR), and 0.3 negative likelihood ratio (-LR). A cutoff score of 15 on the CES-D corresponded to 83% sensitivity, 78% specificity, 19.7% positive predictive value, 98.6% NPV, 3.7 +LR, and 0.22 -LR. CONCLUSIONS: This was the first study to validate depression screening tools in the collegiate SA population. The results suggest cutoff scores on the PHQ-9 and CES-D in SA may need to be lower than those recommended for the general population and provide strong evidence for use as screeners to rule out depression. Referral and confirmatory testing should be implemented to confirm the presence of depression for SAs scoring at or above the cutoff thresholds. Given its brevity, inclusion of a suicidality or self-harm question and evidence of -LR and NPV strength, the PHQ-9 is a practical and effective screener for the SA 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.210
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Athletic TrainingSame topicSport Psychology and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207