| Title |
Building a new Rasch-based self-report inventory of depression
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s53425 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michela Balsamo, Giuseppe Giampaglia, Aristide Saggino |
| Abstract |
This paper illustrates a sequential item development process to create a new self-report instrument of depression refined with Rasch analysis from a larger pool of potential diagnostic items elicited through a consensus approach by clinical experts according to the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders criteria for major depression. A 51-item pool was administered to a sample of 529 subjects (300 healthy community-dwelling adults and 229 psychiatric outpatients). Item selection resulted in a 21-item set, named the Teate Depression Inventory, with an excellent Person Separation Index and no evidence of bias due to an item-trait interaction (χ (2)=147.71; df =168; P=0.48). Additional support for the unidimensionality, local independence, appropriateness of the response format, and discrimination ability between clinical and nonclinical subjects was provided. No substantial differential item functioning by sex was observed. The Teate Depression Inventory shows considerable promise as a unidimensional tool for the screening of depression. Finally, advantages and disadvantages of this methodology will be discussed in terms of subsequent possible mathematical analyses, statistical tests, and implications for clinical investigations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 53 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 9 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 14 | 26% |
| Psychology | 9 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 9% |
| Mathematics | 4 | 8% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 11 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 August 2015.
All research outputs
#15,518,326
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#1,491
of 3,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#180,815
of 319,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#27
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,132 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.