4.5 Article

The German version of the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale for Children: psychometric evaluation in a population-based survey of 7 to 17 years old children and adolescents - results of the BELLA study

期刊

EUROPEAN CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY
卷 17, 期 -, 页码 116-124

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00787-008-1013-0

关键词

depression; children; diagnostic test; psychometric properties; factor structure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To examine the psychometric properties and test the theoretical quality of the German version of the Centre for Epidemiological Studies depression scale for children (CES-DC), a 20-item screening instrument measuring the frequency of parent-and self-reported depressive symptoms in children and adolescents. Methods Using a population-based, representative sample of n = 2,863 7 to 17-year-old German children and adolescents, factorial validity were determined by means of linear structural equation modelling. Cross-sectional coefficients of reliability, inter-rater agreement as well as descriptive statistics of the scales were calculated. Results In a population-based German sample, the four-factor version of the CES-DC following Radloff (Appl Psychol Meas 1: 385-401, 1977) is considered to have good factorial validity and stability across age and informant versions. The main problems of the questionnaire are the high item difficulties, strong floor effects of the scales and low cross-sectional reliability, which are acceptable only for screening purposes. The low inter-rater agreement indicates that parental assessment can replace self-assessment only to a limited degree. Conclusion The strengths and weaknesses of the CES-DC are discussed taking previous data and comparable tests into consideration. Particular advantages are the existence of the parent-report form and the adult version, as well as its multifactorial structure. Parental assessment should be supplemented by self-report data whenever possible.

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