↓ Skip to main content

Validation of the 10-item Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D-10) in Zulu, Xhosa and Afrikaans populations in South Africa

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet

Citations

dimensions_citation
203 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
258 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Validation of the 10-item Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D-10) in Zulu, Xhosa and Afrikaans populations in South Africa
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-016-1178-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily Claire Baron, Thandi Davies, Crick Lund

Abstract

The 10-item Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D-10) is a depression screening tool that has been used in the South African National Income Dynamics Study (NIDS), a national household panel study. This screening tool has not yet been validated in South Africa. This study aimed to establish the reliability and validity of the CES-D-10 in Zulu, Xhosa and Afrikaans. The CES-D-10's psychometric properties were also compared to the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), a depression screening tool already validated in South Africa. Stratified random samples of Xhosa, Afrikaans and Zulu-speaking participants aged 15 years or older (N = 944) were recruited from Cape Town Metro and Ethekwini districts. Face-to-face interviews included socio-demographic questions, the CES-D-10, Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), and WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS). Major depression was determined using the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview. All instruments were translated and back-translated to English. Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation. Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves were used to investigate the CES-D-10 and PHQ-9's criterion validity, and compared using the DeLong method. Overall, 6.6, 18.0 and 6.9% of the Zulu, Afrikaans and Xhosa samples were diagnosed with depression, respectively. The CES-D-10 had acceptable internal consistency across samples (α = 0.69-0.89), and adequate concurrent validity, when compared to the PHQ-9 and WHODAS. The CES-D-10 area under the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve was good to excellent: 0.81 (95% CI 0.71-0.90) for Zulu, 0.93 (95% CI 0.90-0.96) for Afrikaans, and 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.99) for Xhosa. A cut-off of 12, 11 and 13 for Zulu, Afrikaans and Xhosa, respectively, generated the most balanced sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (Zulu: 71.4, 72.6% and 16.1%; Afrikaans: 84.6%, 84.0%, 53.7%; Xhosa: 81.0%, 95.0%, 54.8%). These were slightly higher than those generated for the PHQ-9. The CES-D-10 and PHQ-9 otherwise performed similarly across samples. The CES-D-10 is a valid, reliable screening tool for depression in Zulu, Xhosa and coloured Afrikaans populations.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 258 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 257 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 13%
Student > Master 33 13%
Researcher 27 10%
Student > Bachelor 20 8%
Other 15 6%
Other 45 17%
Unknown 84 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 16%
Social Sciences 33 13%
Psychology 32 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 16 6%
Other 25 10%
Unknown 92 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 19 May 2018.
All research outputs
#4,202,008
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#1,634
of 4,719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#84,820
of 421,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#33
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% 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 421,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 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 59% of its contemporaries.