Evaluation of a Brief Measure of Depressive Mood for Use in a University Counseling Center

Abstract

To study the reliability of Set 1 (A, B, C, D) and Set 2 (E, F, G) of the state and trait forms of the Depression Adjective Check Lists in university counseling centers, four independent studies were conducted. Reliability (internal consistency, split-half, and alternate form) and validity (convergent and discriminant) for both sets and both forms were sufficiently high to warrant use for research and clinical purposes. Additional research needs were mentioned.

A multimodal analysis of personal negativity.

“…Traditionally, research on what has sometimes been called depressive affect (Lubin, Van Whitlock, Swearngin, & Seever, 1993;Morrow & Nolen-Hoeksema, 1990), depression (Joiner & Metalsky, 1995;Nezlek, Imbrie, & Shean, 1994), or dysphoria (Rook, Pietromonaco, & Lewis, 1994;Tan & Stoppard, 1994) has been justified by arguments that unhappiness in the "normal," nonclinical range is located on the same conceptual continuum as bona fide depression. Therefore, it is claimed, the study of unhappy but nonclinically depressed college students can yield important insights into the mechanisms that underlie depression (Vredenburg, Flett, & Krames, 1993;Weary, Edwards, & Jacobson, 1995).…”

Factor structure of the state and trait versions of the depression adjective check lists

“…The state form of the DACL was developed to measure short-term depressive mood and change in depressive mood, while the more recent trait form was developed to measure more enduring or long-term depressive mood (Lubin, 1981(Lubin, , 1994. Both forms of the DACL have been used in a wide variety of investigations (Lubin, Swearngin, & Seaton, 1992), and numerous investigations of the reliability and validity of the DACL with a number of diverse subject populations have been reported (Beckingham & Lubin, 1991 ; DeSouza, Lubin, & Whitlock, 1991; Grayson, Lubin, & Whitlock, 1994;Lubin, 1981;Lubin, 1994;Lubin, Hornstra, & Dean, 1978;Lubin, McCollum, Whitlock, Thummel, Powers, & Davis, 1994;Lubin & Turnbull, 1993;Lubin, Whitlock, McCollum, Thummel, Denman, & Powers, 1994;Lubin, Whitlock, Schemmel, & Swearngin, 1993;Lubin, Whitlock, Swearngin, & Seever, 1994; Reisenmy, Lubin, Whitlock, & Penick, 1993). In these studies, both versions of the DACL have been shown to have high internal consistency and alternate form reliability.…”