The center for epidemiologic studies depression scale : Invariance across heterosexual men, heterosexual women, gay men, and lesbians
- Authors: Gomez, Rapson , McLaren, Suzanne
- Date: 2017
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Psychological Assessment Vol. 29, no. 4 (2017), p. 361-371
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: The present study examined measurement invariance of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in community groups of Australian heterosexual men (N = 1106), heterosexual women (N = 2111), gay men (N = 527), and lesbians (N = 712). Confirmatory factor analysis of CES-D item scores supported the theorized oblique 4-factor model. There was support for full measurement invariance across the 4 groups, based on differences in approximate fit indices. In contrast there was support for only partial invariance when the chi-square difference test was applied. Lack of invariance was mostly for depressed affect and somatic symptom items, with noninvariant somatic symptom items showing consistently high factor loadings and thresholds among lesbians compared with the other groups. The findings are discussed in relation to the use of the CES-D, the relevance of different depression symptoms to how depressions is experienced by the different gender and sexual orientation groups, and gender role socialization and minority sexual orientation theories. (PsycINFO Database Record
The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Support for a bifactor model with a dominant general factor and a specific factor for positive affect
- Authors: Gomez, Rapson , McLaren, Suzanne
- Date: 2015
- Type: Text , Journal article
- Relation: Assessment Vol. 22, no. 3 (2015), p. 351-360
- Full Text: false
- Reviewed:
- Description: Objectives: For the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) ratings, the study examined support for a bifactor model, and also the internal consistency reliability and external validity of the factors in this model. Method: Participants (N = 1,178) were older adults from the general community who completed the CES-D. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis of their ratings indicated support for the bifactor model. For this model, the general factor explained most of the covariance in the scores of the CES-D items for Depressed Affect, Somatic Symptoms and Retarded Activity, and Interpersonal Difficulties items. Most of the covariance in the scores of the Positive Affect (PA) scale was explained by its own specific factor. Additional analyses showed support for internal consistencies and external validities of general factors based on all the CES-D items, and when PA items were excluded, and also the PA-specific factor. Discussion: The findings support the use of a total CES-D score without the PA items and also the concurrent use of the PA scale score. © The Author(s) 2014.