4.5 Article

Reliability and Validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale in a Sample of Portuguese Older Adults with Mild-to-Moderate Cognitive Impairment

期刊

BRAIN SCIENCES
卷 13, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/brainsci13081160

关键词

depressive symptoms; older adults; geriatric depression scale; depression screening

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to analyze the psychometric properties of two Portuguese versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-27 and GDS-15) in Portuguese older adults with mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment. The results showed that both GDS-27 and GDS-15 have good internal consistency and validity, making them suitable instruments for assessing depressive symptoms in Portuguese-speaking older adults.
Although the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is a well-established instrument for the assessment of depressive symptoms in older adults, this has not been validated specifically for Portuguese older adults with cognitive impairment. The objective of this study was to analyze the psychometric properties of two Portuguese versions of the GDS (GDS-27 and GDS-15) in a sample of Portuguese older adults with mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment. Clinicians assessed for major depressive disorder and cognitive functioning in 117 participants with mild-to-moderate cognitive decline (76.9% female, M-age = 83.66 years). The internal consistency of GDS-27 and GDS-15 were 0.874 and 0.812, respectively. There was a significant correlation between GDS-27 and GDS-15 with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (GDS-27: rho = 0.738, p < 0.001; GDS-15: rho = 0.760, p < 0.001), suggesting good validity. A cutoff point of 15/16 in GDS-27 and 8/9 in GDS-15 resulted in the identification of persons with depression (GDS-27: sensitivity 100%, specificity 63%; GDS-15: sensitivity 90%, specificity 62%). Overall, the GDS-27 and GDS-15 are reliable and valid instruments for the assessment of depression in Portuguese-speaking older adults with cognitive impairment.

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

4.5
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