Skip to main content

Table 2 Structural and Content Validity Findings by Measure

From: The assessment of depression in people with multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of psychometric validation studies

Authors (Date)

Measure

Structural Validity (Factor Analysis)

Content Validity Item Inclusion

Mohr et al. (1997) [70]a

BDI

 

Fatigue, work difficulty, and concerns about health (ps < .001) within MS population

Moran & Mohr (2005) [39]

BDI

 

All items showed significant reductions following treatment (p < .05)

Aikens et al. (1999) [24]

BDI-II

 

MS had higher scores than healthy controls on work difficulty, F = 8.05, p < .001 and sexual disinterest, F = 9.99, p < .005.

Strober & Arnett (2010) [41]

mBDI

 

MS-NON-DEP: fatigue, indecision, loss of libido, work difficulty, irritability, loss of interest, crying, dissatisfaction, self-criticism. DEP-PwMS: Irritability, loss of interest, crying, dissatisfaction, self-criticism, sadness, pessimism, failure, guilt, appetite, disappointment, weight loss. MS (more severe in DEP-MS) or related to depressive symptoms: irritability, loss of interest, crying, dissatisfaction, self-criticism.

Amtmann et al. (2014) [33]

PHQ-9; CESD-10;

PROMIS-D-8

Fit indices from a one-factor CFA were acceptable. CFI for all models ≥ of 0.95. TLIs for PHQ-9 and CESD-10 < 0.95 (0.94 and 0.93, respectively). TLI > 0.95 for PROMIS-D-8. RMSEAs > .05 for any of the measures.

 

Sjonnesen et al. (2012) [46]

PHQ-9

 

Exclusion of fatigue and concentration items no change in prevalence estimates (p > .05). Fatigue item contributed the most to the total score in both groups (MS 35.1 % (95%CI 30.9–39.3), control 34.8 % (95%CI 33.5–36.1). Item contribution for fatigue and concentration items between groups (p > .05). Anhedonia was lower in MS than controls (OR 0.47, p = .03), PwMS positively endorsed guilt (OR 2.17, p = .03) and fatigue (OR 1.51, p = .05); frequency of endorsement between groups (p > .05)

Patten et al. (2005) [44]

CES-D

 

Agreement between full and modified scales, r = .99, 1.00, .98; k = .93, .96, .90. Prevalence for full scale (>15) was 32.8 % (95%CI 18.9–36.8), exc. fatigue 30.0 % (95%CI 26.3–34.0), exc. cognitive 31.0 % (95%CI 27.3–35.0), exc. both 30.4 % (95%CI 26.6–24.4).

Verdier-Taillefer et al. (2001) [48]

CES-D

Factor 1 = depressed affect; Factor 4 = interpersonal relationships. Factor 2 = positive affect items (MS group), but contained somatic complaints (other groups); Factor 3 = somatic complaints (MS group) but positive affect (other groups)

 

Chang et al. (2003) [37]

CMDI

CFA confirmed the subscale/factor structure

Vegetative subscale showed misfitting in PwMS. ‘Fatigue’ and ‘useless’ items were endorsed more by MS than controls.

Mohr et al. (2007) [38]

Two-item measure

 

The sensitivity and NPV of using either question alone significantly better than either question alone; the sensitivity of both questions was significantly lower than other methods

  1. Note: Studies that are not included in the table either did not assess content validity or did not report it. a ANOVAS but does not report f values. DEP = Depressed