Assessment
Christian A. L. Bean, Ph.D.
Postdoctoral Scholar
Vanderbilt University
Upper Chichester, Pennsylvania, United States
Sophia B. Mueller, B.A.
Graduate Student
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
George Abitante, M.S.
Graduate Student
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
Jeffrey A. Ciesla, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Kent State University
Kent, Ohio, United States
Sun-Joo Cho, Ph.D.
Professor
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
David A. Cole, Ph.D.
Professor
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale – Revised (CESD-R) is a popular self-report screening measure for depression that has been validated in various populations and demonstrated configural, metric, and scalar measurement invariance between biological males and females in large, racially diverse samples. A 20-item questionnaire with scores ranging from 0 to 4 for each item, the CESD-R can produce total scores ranging from 0 to 80. However, the typical scoring protocol for the CESD-R collapses the two most severe response options and restricts the range of possible total scores to 0 to 60 to retain the same range and clinical cutoff scores as the original CES-D. Surprisingly, despite the widespread adoption of this practice, the psychometric impact of this scoring approach has never been systematically examined. In an undergraduate and community adult sample (n = 869), item response theory analyses, including examination of test and item information curves as well as item thresholds, indicated that scoring the CESD-R with all 5 response options (which we refer to as the CESD-R5) provided nearly twice as much information about a person’s latent depression for individuals with high levels of depression than did scoring the CESD-R conventionally, with 4 response options per item (i.e., the CESD-R4). The CESD-R5 retained the strong reliability and factor structure of the CESD-R4 and was more sensitive to individual differences for participants at high levels of depression compared to the CESD-R4. Finally, we conducted comparisons of percentile scores for the CESD-R4 and CESD-R5 to estimate the scaling differences and ascertain whether different clinical cutoff scores would be needed for the CESD-R5. Results provide preliminary evidence that researchers and clinicians should score the CESD-R using the full 0 to 80 scale and provide initial guidance for adjusting previously established CESD-R clinical cutoffs scores for use with the CESD-R5.