Evaluation of the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for adolescent depression: A COSMIN systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This review evaluated the quality and suitability of current Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for measuring depressive symptoms and diagnosing depression in adolescents, including whether there is any measurement of potential developmental aetiological factors. Methods On August 8, 2024, the databases Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Ovid Medline were searched for studies on psychometric instruments designed to detect adolescent depressive symptoms. Two reviewers searched for relevant articles, extracted data following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, and assessed the quality of studies and instruments using the 2018 and 2024 Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines for the systematic review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Additional evaluation of instrument content assessed whether items addressed developmental aetiology. PROSPERO CRD42020175950. Results 57 publications met the inclusion criteria, identifying 16 instruments for quality assessment. Most instruments for measuring adolescent depressive symptoms were adaptations of adult depression scales based on adult diagnostic criteria. According to COSMIN criteria, three instruments - the BDI-2, MFQ, and PHQ - received an A rating, 12 a B rating, and one a C rating, based on the quality of evidence for their measurement properties. None of the instruments directly assessed developmental aetiological factors. Conclusion While some high-quality psychometric instruments are available for identifying adolescent depressive symptoms, further development of psychometric instruments is needed to incorporate potential aetiological factors relevant to adolescent development in the context of depressive symptoms. Systematic review registration CRD42020175950.
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 | 0.071 | 0.232 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".