Validity of the GDS-4 revisited

Sheung-Tak CHENG, Alfred C. M. CHAN

Research output: Contribution to journalArticles

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article points out several flaws in an earlier article (Chau, Martin, Thompson, Chang, & Woo, 2006Chau, J., Martin, C. R., Thompson, D. R., Chang, A. M. and Woo, J. 2006. Factor structure of the Chinese version of the geriatric depression scale. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 11: 48–59. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar] ). We note that Chau, Martin, Thompson, Chang, and Woo (2006Chau, J., Martin, C. R., Thompson, D. R., Chang, A. M. and Woo, J. 2006. Factor structure of the Chinese version of the geriatric depression scale. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 11: 48–59. [Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar] ) had misquoted our work on a 4-item version of the geriatric depression scale (GDS), and the work of the research team, which developed the original 30-item and 15-item versions of the scale. Furthermore, their data analytic methods were flawed, and their conclusions were often not supported by the data they presented. On the basis of these observations, we found no evidence against the use of the 4-item version of the GDS. Copyright © 2008 Taylor & Francis.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)621-626
JournalPsychology, Health & Medicine
Volume13
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Citation

Cheng, S.-T., & Chan, A. C. M. (2008). Validity of the GDS-4 revisited. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 13(5), 621-626. doi: 10.1080/13548500801932402

Keywords

  • Geriatric Depression Scale
  • Psychometric properties
  • Chinese

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Validity of the GDS-4 revisited'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.