↓ Skip to main content

An examination of the measurement adequacy of the CES-D among African American women family caregivers

Overview of attention for article published in Psychiatry Research, July 2010
Altmetric Badge

Readers on

mendeley
35 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.
Article details
Title
An examination of the measurement adequacy of the CES-D among African American women family caregivers
Published in
Psychiatry Research, July 2010
DOI 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.06.022
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) has been used extensively in community-based surveys to describe and explain the prevalence of depression in the general population. Yet, questions have been raised regarding its adequacy for use among ethnic minority because of its factor variance. Employing a within-gender and race approach, we test the validity of the CES-D for use among a sample of African American women family caregivers. Using data from a cross-sectional community sample of 521 urban and rural African American women family caregivers, this study examines the dimensionality of the CES-D by testing four different measurement models through confirmatory factor analyses. Among the four measurement models tested using Weighted Least Squares estimation, our findings support previous research that has identified four dimensions in the CES-D: depressed affect, positive affect, somatic complaints, and interpersonal relations for our sample. Additionally, a three-factor (somatization) model and a four-factor model were shown to be equivalent. Implications for further measurement and model testing, and the use of the CES-D for research among African American women caregivers are discussed.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 17%
Researcher 6 17%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 5 14%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 20%
Psychology 6 17%
Social Sciences 6 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 17%