Brief measurement devices can alleviate respondent burden and lower refusal rates in surveys. This article reports on a field test of two shorter forms of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) symptoms index in a multisite survey of persons 65 and older. Factor analyses demonstrate that the briefer forms tap the same symptoms dimensions as does the original CES-D, and reliability statistics indicate that they sacrifice little precision. Simple transformations are presented to how scores from the briefer forms can be compared to those of the original.
The associations between depressive symptoms and functional disability and chronic conditions are examined in an elderly cohort of 2,806 noninstitutionalized men and women living in New Haven, Connecticut who were interviewed in 1982 as a part of the Yale Health and Aging Project. The aim is to explore several potential sources of invalidity in using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D) to measure depressive symptoms in elderly populations. In particular, the authors are concerned with the possibility that prevalent physical illnesses and disabilities may cause the older person to report many somatic complaints, a major component of most measures of depressive symptomatology, and thereby inflate his or her CES-D score. Mean CES-D scores are 4.86 for those without any disabilities and range to 13.51 for those with major functional disabilities. However, physical disability is significantly associated with virtually every item on the CES-D scale not just those somatically-oriented items. The addition of functional disability to a multivariate model including age subfactor analysis of responses from this elderly sample produces results almost identical to those reported by earlier investigators who studied younger and middle-aged adults. The authors conclude that physical disabilities among the elderly do not appear to be a major threat to the validity of the CES-D scale and that the strong associations between physical and mental health should be rigorously investigated.
The authors examined national changes in socioeconomic differentials in mortality for middle-aged and older white men and women in the United States with the use of 1960 data from the Matched Records Study and 1971-1984 data from the first National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I) Epidemiologic Follow-up Study (NHEFS). In 1960, there was little difference in mortality by educational level among middle-aged and older men. Since 1960, death rates among men declined more rapidly for the more educated than the less educated, which resulted in substantial educational differentials in mortality in 1971-1984. In contrast, among women, death rates declined at about the same rate regardless of educational attainment, so that a strong inverse relation between education and mortality in 1960 remained about the same magnitude during 1971-1984. Trends in educational differentials for heart disease mortality are responsible for much of the change for all causes of death. Relative risk estimates based on the NHEFS indicate that after taking into account selected baseline risk factors the least educated are still at substantially elevated risk of death from heart disease, ranging from a relative risk of 1.38 for men aged 65-74 years at baseline to 2.27 for men aged 45-64 years. Reasons for the observed educational differentials and their changes over time are not easily explained and are likely to be multifactorial.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.