Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T07:14:58.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of affective-semantic mode of item presentation in balanced self-report scales: biased construct validity of the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 July 2009

C. K. W. Schotte ,
M. Maes ,
R. Cluydts  and
P. Cosyns
C. K. W. Schotte*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital of Antwerp and Clinical Research Center-Mental Health (CRC-MH), Antwerp, Belgium; Department of Biological Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
M. Maes
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital of Antwerp and Clinical Research Center-Mental Health (CRC-MH), Antwerp, Belgium; Department of Biological Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
R. Cluydts
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital of Antwerp and Clinical Research Center-Mental Health (CRC-MH), Antwerp, Belgium; Department of Biological Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
P. Cosyns
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital of Antwerp and Clinical Research Center-Mental Health (CRC-MH), Antwerp, Belgium; Department of Biological Psychiatry, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
*
1Address for correspondence: Dr C. K. W Schotte, Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital Antwerp (UZA), Wilrijkstraat 10, B-2650 Edegem, Belgium.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Synopsis

The widely applied procedure of balancing self-report instruments by including positively and negatively keyed items is exemplified by the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS). Investigation of the influence of the symptom-positive and symptom-negative item modes on the SDS in a depressed population resulted in two major findings. First, the reversed scoring of the symptom-negative items resulted in higher mean item scores. Secondly, factor analyses of the SDS in the present study and in previous research revealed that the semantic modes of item presentation were represented in the factor structure of the SDS. These findings were confirmed by analyses with the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and by previous factor analytical research with balanced instruments and were interpreted within the framework of the theory of Positive and Negative Affect. The present data cast doubts on the construct validity of the SDS as a measure of depressive symptomatology due to the presence of the negatively keyed items and suggest reconsideration of the use of balanced instruments for minimization of the acquiescence response set.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 26 , Issue 6 , November 1996 , pp. 1161 - 1168
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahlawat, K. S. (1985). On the negative valence items in self-report measures. Journal of General Psychology 112, 89–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (1980). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edn), DSM-III. APA: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Beck, A. T., Rush, A., Shaw, B. F. & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive Therapy of Depression. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Biggs, J. T., Wylie, L. T. & Ziegler, V. E. (1978). Validity of the Zung self-rating depression scale. British Journal of Psychiatry 132, 381–385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumenthal, M. D. (1975). Measuring depressive symptomatology in a general population. Archives of General Psychiatry 32, 971–978.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boyle, G. J. (1979). Delimitation of state–trait curiosity in relation to state anxiety and learning task performance. Australian Journal of Education 23, 70–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, G. J. (1985). Self-report measures of depression: some psychometric considerations. British Journal of Clinical Psychology 24, 45–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, B. J., Fielding, J. M. & Blashki, T. G. (1973). Depression rating scales. Archives of General Psychiatry 28, 361–366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 24, 385–396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, S. & Williamson, G. M. (1988). Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In The Social Psychology of Health (ed. Spacepan, S. and Oskamp, S.), pp. 31–67. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
Endler, N. S., Edwards, J. M. & Vitelli, R. (1991). Endler Multidimensional Anxiety Scales (EMAS): Manual. Western Psychological Services: Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Endler, N. S., Cox, B. J., Parker, J. D. & Bagby, R. M. (1992). Self-reports of depression and state–trait anxiety: evidence for differential assessment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63, 832–838.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faravelli, C., Albanesi, G. & Poli, E. (1986). Assessment of depression: a comparison of rating scales. Journal of Affective Disorders 11, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fugita, S. & Crittenden, K. (1990). Towards culture and population specific norms for self-reported depressive symptomatology. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 36, 83–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gotlib, I. H. & Cane, D. B. (1989). Self-report assessment of depression and anxiety. In Anxiety and Depression. Distinctive and Overlapping Features (ed. Kendall, P. C. and Watson, D.), pp. 83–130. Academic Press: San Diego.Google Scholar
Gotlib, I. H. & Meyer, J. P. (1986). Factor analysis of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List: a separation of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50, 1161–1165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedlund, J. L. & Vieweg, B. W. (1979). The Zung Self-rating Depression Scale: a comprehensive review. Journal of Operational Psychiatry 10, 51–64.Google Scholar
Hewitt, P. L., Flett, G. L. & Mosher, S. W. (1992). The Perceived Stress Scale: factor structure and relation to depression symptoms in a psychiatric sample. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment 14, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, P. C., Finch, A. J., Auerbach, S. M., Hooke, J. F. & Mikulka, P. J. (1976). The State–Trait Anxiety Inventory: a systematic evaluation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 44, 406–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kivela, S. & Pahkala, K. (1986). Sex and age differences of factor pattern and reliability of the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale in a Finnish elderly population. Psychological Reports 59, 587–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, P. (1993). The Handbook of Psychological Testing. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
Kozeny, J. (1987). Psychometric properties of the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale. Activitar Nervosa Superior Praha 29, 279–284.Google ScholarPubMed
Lai, J. C. (1994). Differential predictive power of the positively versus the negatively worded items of the Life Orientation Test. Psychological Reports 75, 1507–1515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGrath, R. & Ratliff, K. (1993). Using self-report measures to corroborate theories of depression: the specificity problem. Journal of Personality Assessment 61, 156–168.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mook, J., Kleijn, C. W. & van der Ploeg, H. M. (1989). (Depressiviteit als dispositie gemeten met de Zung-schaal.) Depressivity as an disposition measured with the Zung-scale. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie 44, 328–340.Google Scholar
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: a new self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement 1, 385–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spielberger, C. D., Edwards, C. D., Mantoun, J. & Lushene, R. E. (1987). The State–Trait Inventory. NFER-Nelson: Windsor.Google Scholar
Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W. & Gibbon, M. (1985). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III Patient Version. Biometrics Research Department, New York State Psychiatric Institute: New York.Google Scholar
Van Der Ploeg, H. M., Defares, P. B. & Spielberger, C. D. (1980). ZBV. A Dutch-language Adaptation of the Spielberger State–Trait Anxiety Inventory. Swets and Zeitlinger: Lisse, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Watson, D. & Kendall, P. C. (1989). Understanding anxiety and depression: their relation to negative and positive affective states. In Anxiety and Depression. Distinctive and Overlapping Features (ed. Kendall, P. C. and Watson, D.), pp. 3–26. Academic Press: San Diego.Google Scholar
Watson, D. & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual construction of mood. Psychological Bulletin 98, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. B. (1988). A structured interview guide for the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Archives of General Psychiatry 45, 742–747.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zuckerman, M. & Lubin, B. (1965). The Multiple Affect Adjective Check List. Educational and Industrial Testing Service: San Diego.Google ScholarPubMed
Zung, W. W. K. (1965). A self-rating depression scale. Archives of General Psychiatry 12, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zung, W. W. K. (1973). From art to science. The diagnosis and treatment of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 29, 328–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zung, W. W. K. (1986). Zung Self-rating Depression Scale and Depression Status Inventory. In Assessment of Depression (ed. Sartorius, N. and Ban, T. A.), pp. 221–231. Springer-Verlag: Heidelberg.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwick, W. R. & Velicer, W. F. (1982). Factors influencing four rules for determining the number of components to retain. Multivariate Behavioral Research 17, 253–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed