Single item measures of parental history of depression: Do adult children's responses agree with their parents' own reports?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parental history of depression is a risk factor for major depressive disorder. In many cases, it is impractical or impossible to contact parents directly to assess their depression history. Although validated, multi-item instruments that assess parental history of depression are available, a single item measure (e.g., has your mother/father ever had depression?) is still used in many settings. This study examined the agreement between responses of adult children (n = 10,142) on the single item measure and parents' own responses on a validated measure of lifetime history of major depressive disorder and a single item measure of their depression history. DESIGN: Data came from the Lifelines cohort study, which is a community-based study in the Netherlands. Parents completed the Lifetime Depression Assessment Self-report (LIDAS) and self-reported if they had a history of depression. Kappa, sensitivity, selectivity, positive predictive vale, and negative predictive value were calculated. RESULTS: = 0.39). In all analyses, specificity was high, whereas sensitivity was relatively low. CONCLUSION: The minimal-fair agreement between the single item measure of parental history of depression and parents' own responses was driven by adult children's underestimation or unawareness of their parents having a history of depression. The observed levels of agreement were similar to those of other studies that used multi-item measures to examine agreement between informant reports and first-degree relatives' history of depression.
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 | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".