Background and objectives: Psychiatric research lacks the equivalent of a thermometer, that is, a tool that accurately measures mental disorder regardless of context. Instead, the psychometric properties of scales that purport to assess psychopathology must be continuously evaluated. To that end, this study evaluated the diagnostic agreement between the eight-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD-8) and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-short form (CIDI-SF) in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS).
Research design and methods: Data come from 17,613 respondents aged >50 from the 2014 wave of the HRS. Kappa coefficients were used to assess the agreement between the 2 instruments on depression classification across a range of thresholds for identifying case status, including variation across subgroups defined by age, race/ethnicity, and gender.
Results: The point prevalence of depression syndrome estimated by the CESD was higher than that estimated by the CIDI-SF (CESD: 9.9%-19.5% depending on the cutoff applied to the CESD vs CIDI-SF: 7.7%). Assuming CIDI-SF as the gold standard, the CESD yielded a sensitivity of 56.2%-70.2% and specificity of 84.7%-94.0% across the range of cutoffs. The agreement on depression classification was weak (κ = 0.32-0.44).
Discussion and implications: Depression cases identified by the CESD have poor agreement with those identified by the CIDI-SF. Conceptually, psychological distress as measured by the CESD is not interchangeable with depression syndrome as measured by the CIDI-SF. Population estimates of depression among older adults based on the CESD should be interpreted with caution.
Keywords: CES-D; Depression classification; Reliability; Validity.
© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: email@example.com.