Publication

Measuring Depression Over Time . . . or not? Lack of Unidimensionality and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance in Four Common Rating Scales of Depression

Fried, E. I., van Borkulo, C. D., Epskamp, S., Schoevers, R. A., Tuerlinckx, F. & Borsboom, D., Nov-2016, In : Psychological Assessment. 28, 11, p. 1354-1367 14 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

APA

Fried, E. I., van Borkulo, C. D., Epskamp, S., Schoevers, R. A., Tuerlinckx, F., & Borsboom, D. (2016). Measuring Depression Over Time . . . or not? Lack of Unidimensionality and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance in Four Common Rating Scales of Depression. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1354-1367. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000275

Author

Fried, Eiko I. ; van Borkulo, Claudia D. ; Epskamp, Sacha ; Schoevers, Robert A. ; Tuerlinckx, Francis ; Borsboom, Denny. / Measuring Depression Over Time . . . or not? Lack of Unidimensionality and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance in Four Common Rating Scales of Depression. In: Psychological Assessment. 2016 ; Vol. 28, No. 11. pp. 1354-1367.

Harvard

Fried, EI, van Borkulo, CD, Epskamp, S, Schoevers, RA, Tuerlinckx, F & Borsboom, D 2016, 'Measuring Depression Over Time . . . or not? Lack of Unidimensionality and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance in Four Common Rating Scales of Depression', Psychological Assessment, vol. 28, no. 11, pp. 1354-1367. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000275

Standard

Measuring Depression Over Time . . . or not? Lack of Unidimensionality and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance in Four Common Rating Scales of Depression. / Fried, Eiko I.; van Borkulo, Claudia D.; Epskamp, Sacha; Schoevers, Robert A.; Tuerlinckx, Francis; Borsboom, Denny.

In: Psychological Assessment, Vol. 28, No. 11, 11.2016, p. 1354-1367.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Vancouver

Fried EI, van Borkulo CD, Epskamp S, Schoevers RA, Tuerlinckx F, Borsboom D. Measuring Depression Over Time . . . or not? Lack of Unidimensionality and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance in Four Common Rating Scales of Depression. Psychological Assessment. 2016 Nov;28(11):1354-1367. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000275


BibTeX

@article{203cc5b8811b48f9a4cd16bbc9ed6490,
title = "Measuring Depression Over Time . . . or not?: Lack of Unidimensionality and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance in Four Common Rating Scales of Depression",
abstract = "In depression research, symptoms are routinely assessed via rating scales and added to construct sum-scores. These scores are used as a proxy for depression severity in cross-sectional research, and differences in sum-scores over time are taken to reflect changes in an underlying depression construct. To allow for such interpretations, rating scales must (a) measure a single construct, and (b) measure that construct in the same way across time. These requirements are referred to as unidimensionality and measurement invariance. We investigated these 2 requirements in 2 large prospective studies (combined n = 3,509) in which overall depression levels decrease, examining 4 common depression rating scales (1 self-report, 3 clinician-report) with different time intervals between assessments (between 6 weeks and 2 years). A consistent pattern of results emerged. For all instruments, neither unidimensionality nor measurement invariance appeared remotely tenable. At least 3 factors were required to describe each scale, and the factor structure changed over time. Typically, the structure became less multifactorial as depression severity decreased (without however reaching unidimensionality). The decrease in the sum-scores was accompanied by an increase in the variances of the sum-scores, and increases in internal consistency. These findings challenge the common interpretation of sum-scores and their changes as reflecting 1 underlying construct. The violations of common measurement requirements are sufficiently severe to suggest alternative interpretations of depression sum-scores as formative instead of reflective measures. We discuss the possible causes of these violations such as response shift bias, restriction of range, and regression to the mean.",
keywords = "exploratory structural equation modeling, major depression, measurement invariance, unidimensionality, STAR-ASTERISK-D, SEQUENCED TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES, REPORT QIDS-SR, MAJOR DEPRESSION, QUICK INVENTORY, PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION, PSYCHIATRIC-DISORDERS, FACTORIAL INVARIANCE, SOCIOECONOMIC-STATUS, RESPONSE SHIFTS",
author = "Fried, {Eiko I.} and {van Borkulo}, {Claudia D.} and Sacha Epskamp and Schoevers, {Robert A.} and Francis Tuerlinckx and Denny Borsboom",
note = "(c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1037/pas0000275",
language = "English",
volume = "28",
pages = "1354--1367",
journal = "Psychological Assessment",
issn = "1040-3590",
publisher = "AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC",
number = "11",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measuring Depression Over Time . . . or not?

T2 - Lack of Unidimensionality and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance in Four Common Rating Scales of Depression

AU - Fried, Eiko I.

AU - van Borkulo, Claudia D.

AU - Epskamp, Sacha

AU - Schoevers, Robert A.

AU - Tuerlinckx, Francis

AU - Borsboom, Denny

N1 - (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

PY - 2016/11

Y1 - 2016/11

N2 - In depression research, symptoms are routinely assessed via rating scales and added to construct sum-scores. These scores are used as a proxy for depression severity in cross-sectional research, and differences in sum-scores over time are taken to reflect changes in an underlying depression construct. To allow for such interpretations, rating scales must (a) measure a single construct, and (b) measure that construct in the same way across time. These requirements are referred to as unidimensionality and measurement invariance. We investigated these 2 requirements in 2 large prospective studies (combined n = 3,509) in which overall depression levels decrease, examining 4 common depression rating scales (1 self-report, 3 clinician-report) with different time intervals between assessments (between 6 weeks and 2 years). A consistent pattern of results emerged. For all instruments, neither unidimensionality nor measurement invariance appeared remotely tenable. At least 3 factors were required to describe each scale, and the factor structure changed over time. Typically, the structure became less multifactorial as depression severity decreased (without however reaching unidimensionality). The decrease in the sum-scores was accompanied by an increase in the variances of the sum-scores, and increases in internal consistency. These findings challenge the common interpretation of sum-scores and their changes as reflecting 1 underlying construct. The violations of common measurement requirements are sufficiently severe to suggest alternative interpretations of depression sum-scores as formative instead of reflective measures. We discuss the possible causes of these violations such as response shift bias, restriction of range, and regression to the mean.

AB - In depression research, symptoms are routinely assessed via rating scales and added to construct sum-scores. These scores are used as a proxy for depression severity in cross-sectional research, and differences in sum-scores over time are taken to reflect changes in an underlying depression construct. To allow for such interpretations, rating scales must (a) measure a single construct, and (b) measure that construct in the same way across time. These requirements are referred to as unidimensionality and measurement invariance. We investigated these 2 requirements in 2 large prospective studies (combined n = 3,509) in which overall depression levels decrease, examining 4 common depression rating scales (1 self-report, 3 clinician-report) with different time intervals between assessments (between 6 weeks and 2 years). A consistent pattern of results emerged. For all instruments, neither unidimensionality nor measurement invariance appeared remotely tenable. At least 3 factors were required to describe each scale, and the factor structure changed over time. Typically, the structure became less multifactorial as depression severity decreased (without however reaching unidimensionality). The decrease in the sum-scores was accompanied by an increase in the variances of the sum-scores, and increases in internal consistency. These findings challenge the common interpretation of sum-scores and their changes as reflecting 1 underlying construct. The violations of common measurement requirements are sufficiently severe to suggest alternative interpretations of depression sum-scores as formative instead of reflective measures. We discuss the possible causes of these violations such as response shift bias, restriction of range, and regression to the mean.

KW - exploratory structural equation modeling

KW - major depression

KW - measurement invariance

KW - unidimensionality

KW - STAR-ASTERISK-D

KW - SEQUENCED TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES

KW - REPORT QIDS-SR

KW - MAJOR DEPRESSION

KW - QUICK INVENTORY

KW - PSYCHOMETRIC EVALUATION

KW - PSYCHIATRIC-DISORDERS

KW - FACTORIAL INVARIANCE

KW - SOCIOECONOMIC-STATUS

KW - RESPONSE SHIFTS

U2 - 10.1037/pas0000275

DO - 10.1037/pas0000275

M3 - Article

VL - 28

SP - 1354

EP - 1367

JO - Psychological Assessment

JF - Psychological Assessment

SN - 1040-3590

IS - 11

ER -

ID: 35365112