4.6 Article

Factor Structure of the Japanese Version of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in the Postpartum Period

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 9, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103941

关键词

-

资金

  1. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan
  2. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan
  3. Academic Frontier Project for Private Universities, Comparative Cognitive Science Institutes, Meijo University
  4. Core Research for Evolutional Science and Technology
  5. Intramural Research Grant for Neurological and Psychiatric Disorders of NCNP [21B-2]
  6. Specific Research Fund for East Japan Great Earthquake Revival by The New Technology Development Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is a widely used screening tool for postpartum depression (PPD). Although the reliability and validity of EPDS in Japanese has been confirmed and the prevalence of PPD is found to be about the same as Western countries, the factor structure of the Japanese version of EPDS has not been elucidated yet. Methods: 690 Japanese mothers completed all items of the EPDS at 1 month postpartum. We divided them randomly into two sample sets. The first sample set (n = 345) was used for exploratory factor analysis, and the second sample set was used (n = 345) for confirmatory factor analysis. Results: The result of exploratory factor analysis indicated a three-factor model consisting of anxiety, depression and anhedonia. The results of confirmatory factor analysis suggested that the anxiety and anhedonia factors existed for EPDS in a sample of Japanese women at 1 month postpartum. The depression factor varies by the models of acceptable fit. Conclusions: We examined EPDS scores. As a result, anxiety and anhedonia exist for EPDS among postpartum women in Japan as already reported in Western countries. Cross-cultural research is needed for future research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据