Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale in Oncology With Examination of Invariance Between Younger and Older Patients.

Rebecca M Saracino, Heining Cham, Barry Rosenfeld, Christian J Nelson
Author Information
  1. Rebecca M Saracino: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
  2. Heining Cham: Department of Psychology, Fordham University, Bronx, NY, USA.
  3. Barry Rosenfeld: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
  4. Christian J Nelson: Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.

Abstract

Accurate measurement of depressive symptoms in the cancer setting is critical for ensuring optimal quality of life and patient outcomes. The present study compared the one-factor, correlated two-factor, correlated four-factor, and second-order factor models of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), a commonly used measure in oncology settings. Given the importance of adequate psychometric performance of the CES-D across age groups, a second aim was to examine measurement invariance between younger and older adults with cancer. Participants ( = 663) were recruited from outpatient clinics at a large cancer center. Over one-fourth of the sample endorsed clinically significant depressive symptoms (25.9%, = 165). Confirmatory factor analysis of the CES-D supported the hypothesized correlated four-factor model as the best fit. The second-order factor also demonstrated good fit, but interpretations of the factors were more complex. Factors were highly correlated (range = .38-.91). There was also support for full scalar invariance between age groups, suggesting that regardless of age, respondents endorse the same response category for the same level of the latent trait (i.e., depression) on the CES-D. Taken together, the results suggest that the CES-D is a viable depression screening option for oncology settings and does not require scoring adjustments for respondent age.

Keywords

References

  1. J Clin Oncol. 2009 Jun 10;27(17):2758-65 [PMID: 19403886]
  2. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2004;(32):57-71 [PMID: 15263042]
  3. Behav Res Ther. 1997 Apr;35(4):373-80 [PMID: 9134792]
  4. Psychol Assess. 2017 Apr;29(4):361-371 [PMID: 27362464]
  5. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2013 Dec;15(12):421 [PMID: 24214740]
  6. J Clin Oncol. 2014 May 20;32(15):1605-19 [PMID: 24733793]
  7. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Nov 4;101(21):1464-88 [PMID: 19826136]
  8. JAMA. 2017 Feb 21;317(7):728-737 [PMID: 28241357]
  9. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2009;5:363-89 [PMID: 19327033]
  10. Psychooncology. 2014 Feb;23(2):121-30 [PMID: 24105788]
  11. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(9):1015-29 [PMID: 11332223]
  12. Cancer. 2014 Oct 1;120(19):2946-54 [PMID: 24798107]
  13. Expert Rev Neurother. 2017 Jul;17(7):645-647 [PMID: 28471250]
  14. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2018 Jan;16(1):66-97 [PMID: 29295883]
  15. Biol Psychiatry. 2002 Aug 1;52(3):164-74 [PMID: 12182923]
  16. Psychol Aging. 1997 Jun;12(2):277-87 [PMID: 9189988]
  17. J Clin Oncol. 2010 Jan 10;28(2):348-56 [PMID: 19996030]
  18. J Psychosom Res. 1999 May;46(5):437-43 [PMID: 10404478]
  19. Psychooncology. 2017 Oct;26(10):1484-1490 [PMID: 27195436]
  20. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2014 Jun;22(6):606-13 [PMID: 23602308]
  21. Assessment. 2018 Jun 1;:1073191118784653 [PMID: 29947548]
  22. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016 Jul;25(7):1029-36 [PMID: 27371756]
  23. Psychol Methods. 2012 Sep;17(3):354-73 [PMID: 22799625]
  24. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003 Mar;58(3):249-65 [PMID: 12634292]
  25. Psychol Assess. 2010 Sep;22(3):711-5 [PMID: 20822284]
  26. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Nov 10;33(32):3826-33 [PMID: 26195697]
  27. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27181 [PMID: 22110613]
  28. Psychol Assess. 2018 Jan;30(1):97-105 [PMID: 28230409]
  29. Psychiatry Res. 2007 Mar 30;150(2):173-80 [PMID: 17291596]

Grants

  1. P30 CA008748/NCI NIH HHS
  2. T32 CA009461/NCI NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0CES-Dcancercorrelatedagefactor=depressionmeasurementdepressivesymptomsfour-factorsecond-orderCenterEpidemiologicStudiesDepressionScaleoncologysettingsgroupsinvarianceConfirmatoryfitalsoscreeningAccuratesettingcriticalensuringoptimalqualitylifepatientoutcomespresentstudycomparedone-factortwo-factormodelscommonlyusedmeasureGivenimportanceadequatepsychometricperformanceacrosssecondaimexamineyoungerolderadultsParticipants663recruitedoutpatientclinicslargecenterone-fourthsampleendorsedclinicallysignificant259%165analysissupportedhypothesizedmodelbestdemonstratedgoodinterpretationsfactorscomplexFactorshighlyrange38-91supportfullscalarsuggestingregardlessrespondentsendorseresponsecategorylevellatenttraitieTakentogetherresultssuggestviableoptionrequirescoringadjustmentsrespondentFactorAnalysisOncologyExaminationInvarianceYoungerOlderPatientsCFAaging

Similar Articles

Cited By