Prevalence of major and minor depression in elderly persons with mild cognitive impairment—MADRS factor analysis

Gabryelewicz, Tomasz; Styczyńska, Maria; Pfeffer, Anna; Wasiak, Boguslaw; Barczak, Anna; Luczywek, E; Androsiuk, W.; Barcikowska, Maria

doi:10.1002/gps.1235

Cited by 115 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The data simulation was performed using R software 2.6.2.; vectors ε j , f m and C were generated using the function rnorm and δ j using runif. (Bell et al, 1994;Fresan et al, 2005;Honey et al, 2003;Kay et al, 1990;Lancon et al, 1999;Lee et al, 2003;Lindenmayer et al, 2004;Loza et al, 2003;Lykouras et al, 2000;Salokangas et al, 2002;Villalta-Gil et al, 2006) 11 --1 8 -2 BPRS (Adachi et al, 2000;Harvey et al, 1996;Lachar et al, 2001;Ventura et al, 2000) 4 --2 1 1 -BAI (Beck, 1991;Chapman et al, 2009;Kabacoff et al, 1997;Steer et al, 1995;Steer et al, 1993) (Gabryelewicz et al, 2004;Galinowski et al, 1995;Lee et al, 2003;Parker et al, 2003;Serretti et al, 1999) 5 3 2 ----BDI (Basker et al, 2007;Bonicatto et al, 1998;Bonilla et al, 2004;Gorenstein et al, 1999;Grunebaum et al, 2005;Helm et al, 2003;Jo et al, 2007;Killgore, 1999;Munoz et al, 2007;Powell, 2003;Salamero et al, 1994;Shek, 1990;Steer et al, 1989;Uslu et al, 2008;Wang et al, 2005) …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sample size requirements for the internal validation of psychiatric scales

Rouquette

Falissard

2011

Int J Methods Psych Res

199

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To cite this version:Alexandra Rouquette, Bruno Falissard. Sample size requirements for the internal validation of psychiatric scales.. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, Wiley, 2011, 20 (4) Abstract:The ratio of subjects to variables (N/p), as a rule to calculate the sample size required in internal validity studies on measurement scales, has been recommended without any strict theoretical or empirical basis being provided. The purpose of the present study was to develop a tool to determine sample size for these studies in the field of psychiatry. First, a literature review was carried out to identify the distinctive features of psychiatric scales. Then, two simulation methods were developed to generate data according to: 1/ the model for factor structure derived from the literature review and 2/ a real dataset. This enabled the study of the quality of solutions obtained from principal component analysis or Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) on various sample sizes. Lastly, the influence of sample size on the precision of Cronbach"s alpha coefficient was examined. The N/p ratio rule is not upheld by this study: short scales do not allow smaller sample size. As a rule of thumb, if one"s aim is to reveal the factor structure, a minimum of 300 subjects is generally acceptable but should be increased when the number of factors within the scale is large, when EFA is used and when the number of items is small.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sample size requirements for the internal validation of psychiatric scales

Rouquette

Falissard

2011

Int J Methods Psych Res

199

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…30,76 Interrater agreement and internal consistency are high. 30,76 Although it has been shown to be valid in older patients with mild cognitive impairment, 77 sparse data on patients with severe cognitive impairment exist. 78 The MADRS (see, for example, Table 3 located in Supplementary Materials) is in the public domain (although because of its publication in the British Journal of Psychiatry, the scale is formally copyrighted by this journal).…”

Section: Montgomery-asberg Depression Rating Scale (Madrs) Depressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Depression rating scales in Parkinson's disease: Critique and recommendations

Schrag¹,

Barone²,

Brown³

et al. 2007

Movement Disorders

584

348

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depression is a common comorbid condition in Parkinson's disease (PD) and a major contributor to poor quality of life and disability. However, depression can be difficult to assess in patients with PD due to overlapping symptoms and difficulties in the assessment of depression in cognitively impaired patients. As several rating scales have been used to assess depression in PD (dPD), the Movement Disorder Society commissioned a task force to assess their clinimetric properties and make clinical recommendations regarding their use. A systematic literature review was conducted to explore the use of depression scales in PD and determine which scales should be selected for this review. The scales reviewed were the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), Hamilton Depression Scale (Ham-D), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) Part I, Cornell Scale for the Assessment of Depression in Dementia (CSDD), and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Seven clinical researchers with clinical and research experience in the assessment of dPD were assigned to review the scales using a structured format. The most appropriate scale is dependent on the clinical or research goal. However, observer-rated scales are preferred if the study or clinical situation permits. For screening purposes, the HAM-D, BDI, HADS, MADRS, and GDS are valid in dPD. The CES-D and CSDD are alternative instruments that need validation in dPD. For measurement of severity of depressive symptoms, the Ham-D, MADRS, BDI, and SDS scales are recommended. Further studies are needed to validate the CSDD, which could be particularly useful for the assessment of severity of dPD in patients with comorbid dementia. To account for overlapping motor and nonmotor symptoms of depression, adjusted instrument cutoff scores may be needed for dPD, and scales to assess severity of motor symptoms (e.g., UPDRS) should also be included to help adjust for confounding factors. The HADS and the GDS include limited motor symptom assessment and may, therefore, be most useful in rating depression severity across a range of PD severity; however, these scales appear insensitive in severe depression. The complex and time-consuming task of developing a new scale to measure depression specifically for patients with PD is currently not warranted.

show abstract

“…Psychoaffective symptoms could lead to an overestimation of the cognitive difficulties in persons with MCI in light of recent studies showing higher levels of anxiety and depression in these individuals (Gabryelewicz et al, 2004;Hwang et al, 2004;Kumar et al, 2006;Lopez et al, 2005;Lyketsos et al, 2002). Finally, the impact of progression in the disease and the role of the severity of cognitive deficits in complaint were measured.…”

Section: Cognitive Complaint In MCI 223mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognitive complaint in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease

Clément

Belleville

Gauthier³

2008

J. Inter. Neuropsych. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas the presence of a subjective memory complaint is a central criteria for mild cognitive impairment (MCI), little work has been done to empirically measure its nature and severity. The Self-Evaluation Questionnaire (QAM) assessed memory complaints relative to 10 domains of concrete activities of daily life in 68 persons with MCI, 26 persons with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and 81 healthy older adults. In addition, a neuropsychological battery was administered to assess whether subjective complaints were linked to actual cognitive performance. The findings indicate that individuals with MCI report more memory complaints than controls for a range of specific materials0 circumstances. MCI and AD individuals did not differ in their level of memory complaints. Correlational analyses indicated that a higher level of memory complaints relative to conversations and to movies and books were associated with a higher level of objective cognitive deficits in persons with MCI but not in AD. Furthermore, complaints increased in parallel with global cognitive deficits in MCI. These results suggest that persons with MCI report more memory complaints than healthy older controls, but only in specific domains and circumstances, and that anosognosia is more characteristic of the demented than of the MCI phase of Alzheimer's disease. (JINS, 2008, 14, 222-232.)

show abstract

Prevalence of major and minor depression in elderly persons with mild cognitive impairment—MADRS factor analysis

Abstract: It was concluded that both major and minor depression is common in MCI. Three MADRS factors were identified and labelled as anhedonia-pessimism, anxiety-vegetative, and cognitive-inhibition.

Cited by 115 publications

References 20 publications

Sample size requirements for the internal validation of psychiatric scales

Sample size requirements for the internal validation of psychiatric scales

Depression rating scales in Parkinson's disease: Critique and recommendations

Cognitive complaint in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About