A Reexamination of the Factor Structure of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Is a One-Factor Model Plausible?

Michael Edwards, Jennifer S. Cheavens, Jane E. Heiy, Kelly C. Cukrowicz

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) is one of the most widely used measures of depressive symptoms in research today. The original psychometric work in support of the CES-D (Radloff, 1977) described a 4-factor model underlying the 20 items on the scale. Despite a long history of evidence supporting this structure, researchers routinely report single-number summaries from the CES-D. The research described in this article examines the plausibility of 1-factor model using an initial sample of 595 subjects and a cross-validation sample of 661. After comparing a series of models found in the literature or suggested by analyses, we determined that the good fit of the 4-factor model is mostly due to its ability to model excess covariance associated with the 4 reverse-scored items. A 2-factor model that included a general depression factor and a positive wording method factor loading only on those 4 items had fit that was nearly as good as the original 4-factor model. We conclude that although a 1-factor model may not be the best model for the full 20-item CES-D, it is at least plausible. If a unidimensional set of items is required (e.g., for a unidimensional item response theory analysis), by dropping 5 items, we were able to find a 1-factor model that had very similar fit to the 4-factor model with the original 20 items.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)711-715
Number of pages5
JournalPsychological Assessment
Volume22
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Epidemiologic Studies
Depression
Aptitude
Research
Psychometrics
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • CES-D
  • Depression
  • Dimensionality
  • Factor analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

A Reexamination of the Factor Structure of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale : Is a One-Factor Model Plausible? / Edwards, Michael; Cheavens, Jennifer S.; Heiy, Jane E.; Cukrowicz, Kelly C.

In: Psychological Assessment, Vol. 22, No. 3, 01.09.2010, p. 711-715.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{3fedd652900744ab8e7e1ea73703c814,
title = "A Reexamination of the Factor Structure of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale: Is a One-Factor Model Plausible?",
abstract = "The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) is one of the most widely used measures of depressive symptoms in research today. The original psychometric work in support of the CES-D (Radloff, 1977) described a 4-factor model underlying the 20 items on the scale. Despite a long history of evidence supporting this structure, researchers routinely report single-number summaries from the CES-D. The research described in this article examines the plausibility of 1-factor model using an initial sample of 595 subjects and a cross-validation sample of 661. After comparing a series of models found in the literature or suggested by analyses, we determined that the good fit of the 4-factor model is mostly due to its ability to model excess covariance associated with the 4 reverse-scored items. A 2-factor model that included a general depression factor and a positive wording method factor loading only on those 4 items had fit that was nearly as good as the original 4-factor model. We conclude that although a 1-factor model may not be the best model for the full 20-item CES-D, it is at least plausible. If a unidimensional set of items is required (e.g., for a unidimensional item response theory analysis), by dropping 5 items, we were able to find a 1-factor model that had very similar fit to the 4-factor model with the original 20 items.",
keywords = "CES-D, Depression, Dimensionality, Factor analysis",
author = "Michael Edwards and Cheavens, {Jennifer S.} and Heiy, {Jane E.} and Cukrowicz, {Kelly C.}",
year = "2010",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/a0019917",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "711--715",
journal = "Psychological Assessment",
issn = "1040-3590",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A Reexamination of the Factor Structure of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale

T2 - Is a One-Factor Model Plausible?

AU - Edwards, Michael

AU - Cheavens, Jennifer S.

AU - Heiy, Jane E.

AU - Cukrowicz, Kelly C.

PY - 2010/9/1

Y1 - 2010/9/1

N2 - The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) is one of the most widely used measures of depressive symptoms in research today. The original psychometric work in support of the CES-D (Radloff, 1977) described a 4-factor model underlying the 20 items on the scale. Despite a long history of evidence supporting this structure, researchers routinely report single-number summaries from the CES-D. The research described in this article examines the plausibility of 1-factor model using an initial sample of 595 subjects and a cross-validation sample of 661. After comparing a series of models found in the literature or suggested by analyses, we determined that the good fit of the 4-factor model is mostly due to its ability to model excess covariance associated with the 4 reverse-scored items. A 2-factor model that included a general depression factor and a positive wording method factor loading only on those 4 items had fit that was nearly as good as the original 4-factor model. We conclude that although a 1-factor model may not be the best model for the full 20-item CES-D, it is at least plausible. If a unidimensional set of items is required (e.g., for a unidimensional item response theory analysis), by dropping 5 items, we were able to find a 1-factor model that had very similar fit to the 4-factor model with the original 20 items.

AB - The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) is one of the most widely used measures of depressive symptoms in research today. The original psychometric work in support of the CES-D (Radloff, 1977) described a 4-factor model underlying the 20 items on the scale. Despite a long history of evidence supporting this structure, researchers routinely report single-number summaries from the CES-D. The research described in this article examines the plausibility of 1-factor model using an initial sample of 595 subjects and a cross-validation sample of 661. After comparing a series of models found in the literature or suggested by analyses, we determined that the good fit of the 4-factor model is mostly due to its ability to model excess covariance associated with the 4 reverse-scored items. A 2-factor model that included a general depression factor and a positive wording method factor loading only on those 4 items had fit that was nearly as good as the original 4-factor model. We conclude that although a 1-factor model may not be the best model for the full 20-item CES-D, it is at least plausible. If a unidimensional set of items is required (e.g., for a unidimensional item response theory analysis), by dropping 5 items, we were able to find a 1-factor model that had very similar fit to the 4-factor model with the original 20 items.

KW - CES-D

KW - Depression

KW - Dimensionality

KW - Factor analysis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77956757154&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77956757154&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0019917

DO - 10.1037/a0019917

M3 - Article

C2 - 20822284

AN - SCOPUS:77956757154

VL - 22

SP - 711

EP - 715

JO - Psychological Assessment

JF - Psychological Assessment

SN - 1040-3590

IS - 3

ER -