Evaluation of the feasibility, reliability and diagnostic value of shortened versions of the geriatric depression scale

H W van Marwijk, P Wallace, G H de Bock, J Hermans, A A Kaptein, J D Mulder, H W van Marwijk, P Wallace, G H de Bock, J Hermans, A A Kaptein, J D Mulder

Abstract

Background: Many scales have been developed to assess depression, but they are often too lengthy to be of practical use in general practice consultations.

Aim: A study was undertaken to investigate the feasibility, reliability and diagnostic value of the geriatric depression scale and its shorter versions for screening in general practice.

Method: A total of 586 consecutive consulting patients aged 65 years and over were studied in nine general practices in the west of the Netherlands (13 doctors). The 30-item version of the geriatric depression value was compared with the diagnostic interview schedule as a reference test.

Results: The reference test indicated a major depression in six patients while 27 patients had a dysthymic disorder (that is, a chronic mild depression). Five per cent of patients required help for 50% of the questions on the geriatric depression scale. The diagnostic value of the 30-item, 15-item, 10-item and four-item versions did not differ significantly, but the one-item version performed no better than chance. Two items discriminated best between patients who were and who were not depressed (P < 0.05), only one of which was included in a previously proposed four-item version of the scale. The reliability of the proposed four-item version was 0.64, the reliability of the other versions ranging from 0.70 to 0.87.

Conclusion: The results for the different versions of the geriatric depression scale suggest the use of a 10-item or a four-item version. For practical purposes, the smallest subset would be the most desirable: the four-item version. These scales may be better suited for exclusion rather than inclusion purposes. The feasibility of screening for depression in elderly people in a general practice setting is discussed in the light of the results of the study.

References

    1. Fam Pract. 1994 Sep;11(3):260-6
    1. Fam Pract. 1994 Sep;11(3):267-70
    1. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965 Dec;13(6):508-15
    1. Radiology. 1982 Apr;143(1):29-36
    1. Radiology. 1983 Sep;148(3):839-43
    1. Br J Gen Pract. 1994 Mar;44(380):132-5
    1. Acta Psychiatr Scand Suppl. 1988;338:57-63
    1. JAMA. 1989 Aug 18;262(7):914-9
    1. Age Ageing. 1990 Jan;19(1):57-61
    1. Psychol Med. 1990 Feb;20(1):137-46
    1. Age Ageing. 1987 May;16(3):139-44

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera