Clinical Hub,UW Health Clinical Tool Search,UW Health Clinical Tool Search,Questionnaires,Related

Development and Validation of a Geriatric Depression Screening Scale - A Preliminary Report

Development and Validation of a Geriatric Depression Screening Scale - A Preliminary Report - Clinical Hub, UW Health Clinical Tool Search, UW Health Clinical Tool Search, Questionnaires, Related

J. psychial. Rex.. Vol. 17, No. I. pp. 3749, 1983.
Printed in Great Britain.
0 1983 Pergamon Press Ltd.
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University
of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, U.S.A.
Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA 94304, U.S.A.
Geriatric Treatment Team, Santa Clara County Mental Health
Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, Palo Alto, CA 94304, U.S.A.
(Received 25 January 1982; revised 28 June 1982)
Summary-A new Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) designed specifically for rating depression in
the elderly was tested for reliability and validity and compared with the Hamilton Rating Scale
for Depression (HRS-D) and the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS). In constructing the
CDS a lC0-item questionnaire was administered to normal and severely depressed subjects. The
30 questions most highly correlated with the total scores were then selected and readministered to
new groups of elderly subjects. These subjects were classified as normal, mildly depressed or
severely depressed on the basis of Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) for depression. The GDS,
HRS-D and SDS were all found to be internally consistent measures, and each of the scales was
correlated with the subject’s number of RDC symptoms. However, the GDS and the HRS-D
were significantly better correlated with RDC symptoms than was the SDS. The authors suggest
that the GDS represents a reliable and valid self-rating depression screening scale for elderly
MOST EXISTING depression rating scales have been developed and validated in younger
populations and their applicability with older persons has not yet been demonstrated.
The scale described in this article was specifically designed to measure depression in the
aged, primarily as a screening instrument, and validated within this population.
The need for a geriatric depression scale is obvious. Between 5 and 20% of the 20
million aged Americans are estimated to be depressed (GURLAND, 1976). Although one
could apply existing general psychiatric depression scales to this population, the aged
present unique problems for clinicians and researchers interested in the study and treatment
of depression (SALZMAN and SHADER, 1978).
A major problem is the confusion of dementia with depression in the elderly. The
syndrome of “pseudodementia”, with psychomotor retardation and passive refusal to

respond appropriately to cognitive tests is depression mistaken for dementia (WELLS,
1979; JARVIK, 1976). Depression in the elderly often is accompanied by subjective
experiences of memory loss and cognitive impairment (KAHN et al., 1975), symptoms
seen less frequently in the young.
Conversely, somatic symptoms which are usually a key to diagnosis of depression in the
young are less useful in the elderly. For instance, sleep disturbances are a common
symptom of endogenous depression; but such disturbances are also common in the
nondepressed elderly (COLEMAN et al., 1981), while rare in younger persons not suffering
from depression. A host of other examples include the normal decline of sexual function,
constipation, and the aches and pains associated with arthritis in the aged.
The high prevalence of somatic complaints among the elderly and their unique cognitive
complaints present both a problem and an opportunity in screening for depression in the
elderly. The problem is that most existing scales are heavily loaded toward measuring the
somatic symptoms of depression. Although somatic complaints are clearly part of major
depressive disorders, this will not necessarily be the case in milder forms of depression.
Moreover, to the extent one is interested in screening for depression rather than formal
diagnosis or description, discrimination between depressed and nondepressed persons or
between different degrees of depression would seem to be the primary concern. For this
reason it may be necessary to weight somatic symptoms of depression less heavily than
psychological symptoms having greater discriminative power. On the other hand, the unique
cognitive complaints of the elderly may present an opportunity to devise screening
instruments with enhanced discriminative power in the elderly.
Another problem in the assessment of geriatric depression and other disorders experienced
by the aged is that the elderly are typically more resistant to psychiatric evaluation than
younger patients (SALZMAN and SHADER, 1978; WELLS, 1979). Consequently, one needs
to design the items comprising a scale to fit this population; questions appropriate for
use with the young may not be appropriate for the old. For example, questions about
sexuality often make the elderly defensive, and yet they are included on many existing
scales. Other questions may pose problems of patient acceptance as well as leading to
problems of interpretation (BLUMENTHAL, 1975). For example, questions about suicidal
intent, whether life is worth living, or whether one is hopeful about the future obviously
have different meaning in those reaching the end of their lifespan. Of course these problems
of patient resistance and unique interpretation can probably be dealt with adequately if an
experienced interviewer administers the depression scale, and the scale is designed to elicit
more open-ended responses from the patient in an atmosphere fostering good rapport.
However, in designing a self-rating depression scale for the aged, these issues need to be
adequately addressed in the scale’s initial development.
It is also essential to provide a simple, easily understood format in the development of a
geriatric depression scale. Several of the self-rating scales presently available may be too
difficult for the elderly to complete by themselves. For example, Zung’s (1965) self-
rating scale for depression uses a four-point scale that is likely to be more confusing than
a yes/no format, because it involves a greater number of choices and subtle discriminations
that must be made by the person.
The scale reported here was designed to avoid most of these problems associated with

the measurement of geriatric depression by developing the scale with the aged in mind
and by selecting items for the scale based on their performance within this population.
Questions that proved to have inadequate power to discriminate depressed from non-
depressed elderly were not incorporated into the scale while uniquely discriminating
items that might not be as useful with younger groups were included. Furthermore, a
yes/no format was used in order to make the scale a simple one that could be used in
nearly all instances as a self-rating scale and one that would be acceptable to patient and
physician alike.
There are numerous depression rating scales currently available. These have been
subject to several reviews (CARROLL et al., 1973; KOCHANSKY, 1979; MCNAIR, 1979;
HEDLUND and VIE~EG, 1979) and include: Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRS-D),
Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Beck Depression Inventory, Phenomena of
Depression Scale, Grading Scale for Depressive Reactions, Psychiatric Judgment of
Depression Scale, NIMH Collaborative Depression GDS, SAD-GLAD, Verdum Depression
Rating Scale, CES-D, SCL-90 Profile of Mood States, and the MMPI Depression Scale.
These scales represent a mixture of observer-rated and self-rating scales. In some cases
the same scale may also have been designed to function in either manner or an observer-
rated measure of depression has been adapted for use as a self-rating scale. CARROLL
et al.‘s (1973) adaptation of the HRS-D represents an example of the latter approach. A
problem with adapting a scale from one format to the other, however, is that questions
which may have been acceptable to respondents in an interview setting where good rapport
is established by the interviewer may no longer be accepted by the respondent when the
same questions are asked using a self-rating scale. We have found this to be the case, for
example, with Carroll et al.‘s scale; mildly depressed subjects dislike the disease-oriented
questions and have difficulty with questions which assume they are in a hospital setting.
However, the primary problem with these depression scales is that they were not
originally designed for use with the elderly and rarely have they been properly validated
in this population. There are some exceptions. There has been an attempt to validate the
SDS in the aged, but the ability of the SDS to discriminate nondepressed from depressed
elderly was found to be limited (ZUNG and GREEN, 1973). Zung suggested using a
classification criterion of 40 for depression; although this would correctly identify 88%
of depressives, it leads to the false identification of normal elderly as being depressed in
44% of the cases. Other comprehensive reviews suggest that there are still no better
criteria that would reduce the number of false positives associated with the SDS (CARROLL
et al., 1973; CARROLL, 1978). Thus, although this represents the best validation efforts
in this population to date, the SDS still has limitations as a geriatric depression screening
Despite the virtual absence of studies aimed at validating existing depression scales
within elderly populations, these scales may prove to be useful even though they were not
originally designed with the aged in mind. For this reason two of the existing scales were
included in the present research. Their inclusion also was desirable so that comparisons
between the GDS with currently existing measures could be made. The present research

was not aimed, however, at demonstrating the superiority of the proposed scale over those
currently available. Indeed, the enormous number of existing scales would make this a
tremendous undertaking. Rather, existing scales were included in order to provide
additional information about the convergent validity of the GDS and to enable tentative
norms for the GDS to be compared to those for other, more extensively researched
The first of these was the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression or HRS-D (HAMILTON,
1960). It was intended to be a measure of treatment outcome rather than as a screening
device. Unlike the CDS it is designed to be completed by an experienced observer after a
30 min clinical interview which assays most phenomena associated with “endogenous”
depression, e.g. insomnia, decreased libido, loss of appetite (LYERLY, 1978). The HRS-D
is probably the most widely accepted clinical interview for depression. It has been shown
to be a rapidly learned and reliable measure (HAMILTON, 1967) capable of distinguishing
between different degrees of depression (CARROLL et al., 1973; BIGGS et al., 1978;
KNESEVICH et al., 1977) and to be one of the few scales available that is also useful as a
diagnostic instrument (SCHNURR et al., 1976).
The other scale included in the present research was the Zung Self-Rating Scale for
Depression or SDS (ZUNG, 1965). It was administered because of its popularity and the
availability of norms for elderly subjects. The SDS has been found to be internally
consistent with split-half reliability coefficients in the range of 0.73-0.79. However,
validity coefficients have shown greater variability across studies; correlations with the
HRS-D have ranged from 0.22 to 0.95 (HEDLUND and VIEWEG, 1979). Although quite
widely used among clinicians and researchers working psychiatry, the SDS has recently
come under criticism as both a research measure and clinical screening device (CARROLL
et al., 1973).
Two studies were conducted in the process of developing and validating the Geriatric
Depression Scale (GDS). In the first study, a large pool of items were constructed and
then tested for the extent to which they appeared to measure depression in the aged. In the
second subject, a subset of these items were selected, readministered to a new sample of
subjects, and validated against an independent criterion of depression. The latter study
also provided a basis for comparing properties of the GDS to other existing measures
of depression due to the inclusion of the SDS and HRS-D. These studies will be discussed
in turn. Finally, after describing the results of these studies, a number of recent investigations
aimed at demonstrating the performance of the GDS in more specific elderly populations
will be discussed.
A team of clinicians and researchers involved in geriatric psychiatry selected 100
questions believed to have potential for distinguishing elderly depressives from normals.
In choosing these questions care was taken to include material covering a wide variety
of topics relevant to depression, such as somatic complaints, cognitive complaints,
motivation, future/past orientation, self-image, losses, agitation, obsessive traits, and
mood itself. A yes/no format was chosen for ease of administration since our experience

with the SDS indicated that a range of possibilities often confused elderly patients.
Questions also were phrased in a format that would not alarm patients or make them
overly defensive. We thought that these features of the scale would maximize its use as a
self-rating instrument of depression in the elderly.
After selecting these items for inclusion in the questionnaire, it was administered in its
self-rating form to 47 subjects. The subjects were either normal elderly living in the
community with no complaints of depression and no history of mental illness, or subjects
hospitalized for depression. Both male and female patients were included from a number
of hospitals in Santa Clara County California. All subjects were over 55 years old.
Data analysis was based on the rationale that the 100 item scale should have prima facia
validity for depression and that those items which correlated best with the total score
would be most likely to measure depression. The 30 items (Table 1) correlated highest and
most significantly with the total score were chosen for inclusion in the GDS. The median
correlation among these items was 0.675 (range=0.47-0.83). For the lOO-item, the median
correlation was 0.51 (range = -0.07 to 0.83).
Choose the best answer for how you felt over the past week
Are you basically satisfied with your life?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Have you dropped many of your activities and interests?
Do you feel that your life is empty?
Do you often get bored?
Are you hopeful about the future?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Are you bothered by thoughts you can’t get out of your head?
Are you in good spirits most of the time?
Are you afraid that something bad is going to happen to you?
Do you feel happy most of the time?
Do you often feel helpless? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Do you often get restless and fidgety?
Do you prefer to stay at home, rather than going out and doing new things?
Do you frequently worry about the future?
Do you feel you h,ave more problems with memory than most?
Doyouthinkitiswonderfultobealivenow? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Do you often feel downhearted and blue?
Do you feel pretty worthless the way you are now?
Do you worry a lot about the past?
Do you find life very exciting?
Is it hard for you to get started on new projects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Do you feel full of energy?
Do you feel that your situation is hopeless?
Do you think that most people are better off than you are?
Do you frequently get upset over little things?
Do you frequently feel like crying? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Do you have trouble concentrating?
Do you enjoy getting up in the inorning?
Do you prefer to avoid social gatherings?
Is it easy for you to make decisions?
Is your mind as clear as it used to be?
. . . yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
. . . . yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
. . . . yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
. . . . yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
. . yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
. . . yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no
yes / no

Although twelve of the 100 original items assessed somatic complaints (e.g. sleep
disturbance, anorexia, weight loss, cardiac or gastrointestinal symptoms), none of these
were among the 30 items which correlated strongest with the total score. The median
correlation between the somatic items and the total score was 0.33 (range = 0.02-0.45).
Thus, these items were excluded from the final scale, because they did not meet the purely
empirical criterion adopted as a basis for an item’s inclusion.
Of the 30 questions selected for inclusion in the CDS, 20 indicated the presence of
depression when answered positively while ten others (Nos 1, 5, 7, 9, 15, 19, 21, 27, 29
and 30) indicated depression when answered negatively. The questions were arranged in a
30 item, one-page format and ordered so as to maximize patient acceptance of the
questionnaire. Having arrived at a final version of the CDS, a validation study was
Two groups of geriatric subjects were chosen for the validation phase. The first of
these (n=40) consisted of normal elderly persons recruited at local senior centers and
housing projects. These subjects had no histories of mental illness and were functioning
well in the community. The second group (n = 60) consisted of subjects under treatment
for depression. These subjects were both inpatients and outpatients, male and female,
and in Veterans Administration, county and private treatment settings.
The subjects under treatment were further differentiated into mild and severe
depression groups. The frequently used criteria of outpatient vs inpatient groups was not
used because in some settings, such as the county mental health service, many severe
depressives were outpatients while in other settings, such as the Veterans Administration,
many mild depressives were inpatients. Instead, it was decided to divide our group of
clinically depressed subjects into mild and severe groups on the basis of whether or not
they met Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDC) for a major affective disorder (depressed)
(SPITTER et a/., 1978). These criteria, elicited during a clinical interview, involve eight
symptoms: weight loss, sleep difficulty, loss of energy, psychomotor retardation, loss
of interest or pleasure in usual activities, feelings of self-reproach or guilt, complaints of
diminished ability to concentrate and recurrent thoughts of death or suicide. Five are
required to make the diagnosis. Using these criteria it was possible to separate the
depressives into a “mild” group (n = 26), having an average of 3.4 RDC criteria symptoms,
and a “severe” group (n = 34) with an average of 5.9 RDC criteria symptoms. These two
groups then became our second and third subject groups, respectively.
The subjects in all groups were given a clinical interview lasting 30-60 min which involved
a rating of the HRS-D and the administration of the two self-rating scales, the SDS and
our CDS. The interviews were conducted by trained observers, the authors. lnterrater
reliability on the HRS-D was 0.9. For those subjects who were unable to complete the
self-rating scales without assistance, the examiner read the questions orally, elicited
answers from the subject, and recorded his or her responses. The order in which the
scales were administered was randomly determined for each subject.

Internal consistency and reliability
Four measures of internal consistency were computed for each of the three depression
scales. These included: (1) the median correlation between the individual items com-
prising a scale and the corrected-item total score (total score minus score on the
particular time involved); (2) the average intercorrelation among the scale’s individual
items; (3) CHRONBACH’S (1951) alpha coefficient; and (4) the split-half reliability
coefficient. Each of these measures or indices of interanl consistency provides a
basis for judging the extent to which the scale’s items all measure the same underlying
construct. In addition to computing these various indices of internal consistency,
test-retest data are reported for the GDS. These data provide information regarding the
reliability, i.e. stability, of GDS scores over time.
The results of the internal consistency analyses are displayed in Table 2. Each of the
indices computed for the depression scales are discussed in turn below.
Index GDS
Median correlation with total score 0.56 0.44 0.56
Mean interitem correlation 0.36 0.25 0.34
Alpha coefficient 0.94 0.87 0.90
Split-half reliability 0.94 0.81 0.82
Correlation with total score. The median correlation between the items of the GDS and
the corrected-item total scores was 0.56 (range=0.32-0.83), suggesting that all of the items
on this scale do, in fact, measure a common latent variable. The comparable values for the
SDS and HRS-D were 0.44 (range = 0.24-0.71) and 0.56 (range = 0.16-0.81), respectively.
Based on these data it would appear that the GDS, HRS-D and SDS are all internally
consistent measures.
Inter-item correlations. The mean intercorrelation among items from the GDS was 0.36;
the computed values for the SDS and HRS-D were 0.25 and 0.34, respectively. These values
are in a range necessary for a high degree of internal consistency for each scale as a
whole, as confirmed by the analyses which follow.
Afpha coefficient. CHRONBACH’S (1951) alpha coefficient was utilized in order to provide
an overall measure of the internal consistency of the GDS. The computed value of the alpha
coefficient was 0.94, suggesting a high degree of internal consistency for the GDS.
Computed values of the alpha coefficient for the SDS and HRS-D were 0.87 and 0.90,

Split-half reliability. An alternative index of internal consistency is the split-half
reliability coefficient. This measure is typically derived by splitting a scale into two
equivalent forms, calculating their intercorrelation, and then estimating the reliability of
the composite scale using the Spearman-Brown formula (NUNNALLY, 1967). Employing
this procedure, the reliability coefficients for the GDS, SDS, and HRS-D were found to
be 0.94, 0.81, and 0.82, respectively. These values are reported in order to allow
comparisons with previous research.
Test-retest reliability. Test-retest reliability was calculated for the GDS by having 20
subjects complete the questionnaire twice, one week apart. A correlation of 0.85 was
obtained @ < O.OOl), suggesting that, at least within the time frame considered here,
scores on the GDS reflect stable individual differences.
The primary test of the validity of the GDS as a measure of depression was provided
by the classification of subjects as normal (i.e. nondepressed), mildly depressed,
or severely depressed on the basis of RDC for major affective disorder. If both this
classification variable and the GDS are valid indices of depression, one would expect
normal subjects to receive the lowest GDS scores whereas severely depressed subjects
should score the highest on this measure. As a test of this hypothesis, an analysis of
variance was conducted in which the classification variable served as a between-subjects
factor while the subjects’ total scores on the GDS served as the dependent measure.
Similar analyses were also performed on the SDS and HRS-D. The results of these
analyses provided evidence for each of the scales’ validity. In each analysis the main
effect for the classification variable was highly significant [GDS: F (2, 97)= 99.48,
p < 0.001; SDS: F(2,97) = 44.75, p < 0.001; HRS-D: F(2. 97) = 110.63, p < O.OOl], and as
seen in Table 3, in each case the means were ordered as predicted. ?-Tests conducted
between each pair of means within the same row of this table showed that subjects
classified as normal scored significantly lower on each of the scales compared to the
mildly and severely depressed subjects while the severely depressed group scored higher
than each of the other two groups (all p < 0.001). These findings, then, provide evidence
Mildly Severely Total
Scale Normal depressed depressed sample
GDS 5.75 15.05 22.85 13.98
(4.34) (6.50) (5.07) (9.02)
SDS 34.3 1 44.15 52.79 43.15
(6.66) (11.39) (7.51) (1 1.53)
HRS 5.43 13.35 25.42 14.29
(4.98) (5.98) (6.45) (10.35)
*Standard deviations appear in parentheses.

for the validity of the GDS as a measure of depression as well as validating the SDS and
Given previous findings indicating that the SDS (ZUNG, 1965; HEDLUND and VIEWEG,
1979) and HRS-D (CARROLL et al., 1973; HAMILTON, 1960, 1967; BIGGS et al., 1978;
KNESEVICH et al., 1977) are valid measures of depression, positive correlations between
these measures and the GDS would provide evidence for the scales’ convergent validity.
The obtained correlation between the GDS and the SDS was found to be 0.84 while a
correlation of 0.83 was found between the GDS and the HRS-D. The correlation between
the SDS and the HRS-D was 0.80. All of these correlations were statistically reliable at or
beyond the 0.001 level.
These analyses provided additional evidence of the validity of each of these depression
scales. However, given the criticism that the SDS often may not adequately distinguish
between different levels of depressive symptomatology (CARROLL et al., 1973) a comparison
was also made across the three scales to determine the relative strength with which each
one was related to the RDC. The correlation of each of the depression scales with the
classification variable derived from these criteria was computed, and then, following
FERGUSON (1971), the magnitude of each correlation was compared to the other two. The
obtained correlations between the classification variable and the GDS, SDS, and HRS-D
were 0.82, 0.69, and 0.83, respectively. All of these represented statistically reliable
correlations (all p’s < 0.001). However, comparing each of these correlations to the
others showed that, whereas those associated with the GDS and the HRS-D did not differ
significantly from each other, t (97) < 1, both of these were significantly greater in
magnitude than that associated with the SDS [GDS vs SDS: t (97)=3.83, p < 0.001;
HRS-D vs SDS: t (97) = 3.85, p < 0.011. It thus appears that, compared to the other two
measures, the SDS discriminates less effectively between the normal, mildly depressed,
and severely depressed subjects.
These results provide evidence that the GDS is a reliable and valid measure of geriatric
depression. A high degree of internal consistency was found for the scale, and total
scores on the GDS were reliable over a one-week interval. Evidence for the validity of the
scale came from a comparison of the mean scores associated with subjects classified as
normal, mildly depressed, or severely depressed based on RDC criteria for depression; the
three groups’ means were reliably different and ordered as one would expect given their
differing RDC scores.
The primary purpose for constructing the GDS was to provide a reliable screening test
for depression in elderly populations that would be simple to administer and not require
the time or skills of a trained interviewer. The fact that the GDS was found to dis-
criminate between groups of normal, mildly depressed, and severely depressed subjects is
encouraging in this regard. However, one would ultimately desire information on the
percentage of individuals correctly and incorrectly classified using particular scores on
this measure. This can be accomplished by computing indices of sensitivity and specificity
for the measure, where in this case sensitivity refers to the number of depressed persons
correctly classified as depressed based on a particular criterion and where specificity refers

to the number of nondepressed persons correctly classified as such. Sensitivity is lowered
to the extent depressed persons are missed using a criterion and classified incorrectly as
nondepressed whereas specificity declines to the extent nondepressed persons are incorrectly
labelled as suffering from depression.
Sensitivity and specificity of the GDS was examined in a recent study conducted by our
research group (BRINK et al., 1981). It was found that among elderly persons drawn from
the same centers as those used in the present study, a cut-off score of 11 on the GDS
yielded a 84% sensitivity rate and a 95% specificity rate. A more stringent cut-off score of
14 yields a slightly lower, 80%, sensitivity rate, but results in the complete absence of
nondepressed persons being incorrectly classified as depressed, i.e. a 100% specificity rate.
Based on these findings BRINK et al. (1981) suggested that a score of O-10 be viewed as
within the normal range while 11 or greater being a possible indicator of depression,
Criteria for the SDS and HRS-D were also offered; these were scores of 46 and 11,
respectively. A score of 46 on the SDS achieves 80% sensitivity and 85% specificity
whereas a score of 11 on the HRS-D achieves 86% sensitivity and 80% specificity. The
three scales, however, are best compared by holding either sensitivity or specificity
constant. With specificity held constant at 80%, the sensitivities of the CDS, SDS and
HRS-D were found to be 90, 82, and 86%, respectively.
A geriatric depression scale should not only be applicable for screening depression in
the physically healthy elderly but should also be useful with the physically ill, and
cognitively impaired. There is some evidence that the GDS may fulfill this criterion.
Using data from a study by GALLAGHER et al. (1981), we found that the GDS differentiated
depressed from nondepressed elderly in a sample of subjects who all suffered from physical
illness. These subjects were elderly arthritics who had been given the GDS after having
been classified as either depressed or nondepressed based on a comprehensive clinical
interview. Comparing the GDS scores of these two groups of arthritics it was found that
the mean score of the depressed subjects (13.1, S.D. = 7.14) was indeed significantly
higher than that of the nondepressed subjects (5.10, S.D. = 4.21), t (47) = 4.94, p < 0.001.
These data, then, provide evidence that the validity of the GDS is not limited to elderly
subjects who are physically healthy.
In another recent study the GDS was found to differentiate depressed from non-
depressed elderly undergoing cognitive treatment for senile dementia. These subjects were
classified as demented by criteria of FOLSTEIN et al’s (1975) Mini-Mental Status Exam.
It was found that those subjects categorized as depressed by a therapist blind to GDS
scores received a mean score of 14.72 (s.D. =6.13) on the GDS vs a mean of only 7.49
(s.D. = 4.26) for nondepressed subjects, t (41) = 4.4, p < 0.001. Although the results of this
study should only be viewed as suggestive since the number of subjects was small
(n=43), this study provides preliminary evidence that the GDS is a valid measure of
depression with demented, as well as normal, elderly subjects.
However, despite evidence for each of the three scales’ validity, they did not appear to
perform equally well with respect to the task of differentiating between various RDC
defined degrees of depression. Because the GDS and HRS-D were correlated with the
number of RDC symptoms each subject had to a significantly greater extent than the SDS,
one could argue that, among the two self-rating scales, the GDS appears to provide a

more sensitive screening instrument. Although the SDS was found to correlate more poorly
with the RDC than either the GDS or HRS-D, differences in the content and format of
the three scales should be considered in making this comparison. It is important to
recognize, first of all, the similarity between the three scales and the criterion, the RDC.
The HRS-D would be expected to be more strongly related to the RDC, and the group
classification variable, than the other two scales simply because the RDC are heavily
represented on the HRS-D. Thus, the GDS and SDS are at a disadvantage in the analyses
undertaken in the present study, because they do not measure all of the symptoms
comprising the RDC while measuring others (e.g. diurnal symptom variation) which are
not reflected in these criteria. Moreover, the poorer performance of the SDS may have
been due partly to the fact that the RDC measure the severity of depression while the
SDS measures the frequency of symptoms, and the two may not correspond closely
(CARROLL et al., 1973).
The RDC were chosen as the basis for classifying the level of depression in subjects
because of a consensus among researchers that it appears to capture the essential aspects
of depressive disorders. Given its wide acceptance, and the lack of a better set of criteria,
the failure of a scale to correlate well with the RDC probably reflects more upon the scale
in question than the RDC. However, despite the differences in content between the RDC
and the GDS, the GDS total score was found to still correlate as strongly with the number
of RDC symptoms as the HRS-D whose content corresponds more closely with these
criteria. Thus, emphasizing the subjective aspects of depression rather than the somatic
and behavior aspects does not seem to have detracted from the validity of the GDS as it
may have in the case of the SDS. Despite the differences in content betwen the GDS and
HRS-D, the former scale did nevertheless appear to be as valid as the HRS-D in the
present research. This finding is somewhat surprising given the absence of somatic
symptoms on the former and reliance upon them in the latter. This may be explained in
part by the fact that both scales assay mood dysphoria and other psychological symptoms
of depression, which seem to best discriminate between the depressed and nondepressed
The issue of how well somatic items measure depression in the elderly and discriminate
the depressed from nondepressed is one which deserves further attention. In the first study
of the present series, the somatic items’ median correlation with the total score was only
0.33, compared to 0.68 for the selected questions. A similar pattern emerged for both
the SDS and HRS-D in the second study. On the SDS the items most highly correlated
with the corrected-item total score were those concerned with the subjective, psychological
aspects of depression while the items most poorly correlated with the total score were those
dealing with the somatic aspects of depression. The four lowest correlations were those
measuring constipation, decreased libido, appetite decrease, and somatic anxiety while
the four highest correlations were those measuring personal devaluation, emptiness,
depressed mood, and dissatisfaction. Nearly identical findings have been obtained by
STEUER et al. (1980). They found total scores on the SDS to be most highly correlated
with those items measuring dissatisfaction, depressed mood, emptiness and personal
devaluation whereas the lowest correlations occurred with those items measuring
constipation, somatic anxiety, decreased libido, and agitation. Moreover, they found

further evidence that the somatic items of the SDS may measure depression more poorly
than subjective states in elderly patients by computing four sets of factor scores labelled
well being, depressed mood, optimism, and somatic symptoms. Not only was the somatic
factor correlated the least strongly with the SDS total score, but this factor was the only
one found to be significantly correlated with physician health ratings. Thus, this study
demonstrates how, even among individuals screened for serious illness, the poorer health
of the aged may undermine the power of somatic symptoms to detect depression.
Of course it is possible that the SDS simply does not contain good measures of those
somatic symptoms accompanying depressive illness. But this interpretation does not
explain the findings in which other measures of depression have been utilized. For example,
although less marked than the results found with the SDS, a similar pattern of results
was found in the present research when the items from the HRS-D were correlated
with the total score: the somatic items generally correlated less strongly than the items
measuring loss of interests, depressed mood and anxiety. Similarly, DESSONVILLE et al.
(1981) using the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS) have
found that, even though the somatic aspects of depression differentiated depressed from
nondepressed elderly, the mean differences between the two groups were smaller on the
somatic items than those measuring the subjective states of depression.
Clearly more research is needed on the expression of depression within elderly subjects.
The fact that the subjects in the present research were all relatively healthy, as were
subjects in these additional studies, may have preserved the discriminability of some
somatic questions. It remains to be determined whether the somatic items on these scales
adequately measure depression in elderly persons who are less healthy. The CDS appears
to avoid many of these problems by focusing on the psychological aspects of depression.
This is not meant to imply that somatic symptoms should not be measured in cases of
depressive illness. Such symptoms need to be assessed when one is concerned with formal
diagnosis or when there is the desire to examine changes in the expression of depressive
illness. However, when screening is the goal, discrimination between levels of depression
is of primary important and somatic questions may be less powerful in this regard than
items chosen empirically for their ability to differentiate the nondepressed from the
Finally, it is important to distinguish instruments to be used for screening, diagnosis
and assessment of change. As the above data indicate, all three may find use as screening
instruments, even if this was not their original intent. None, however, is a diagnostic tool.
Positive results on any of the three scales on screening should be followed up by a clinical
interview if significant levels of depressive symptomatology are found and treatment is
being considered. On the other hand, the HRS-D has also been shown to be quite sensitive
to changes in the level of symptomatology over time (KNESEVICH et a/., 1977), and thus,
may serve well, as it was originally intended, as a means of gauging changes in the
severity of depression. The use of the SDS in outcome research is more controversial
(CARROLL et al., 1973; CARROLL, 1978). It remains to be determined if the CDS may be
useful for measuring changes in the severity of depression following treatment.
In conclusion, though not a substitute for observer-rated scales or indepth diagnostic
interviews, and not yet shown to be treatment sensitive, the CDS appears to be a promising
and simple screening instrument which may find other applications through further research.

Acknowledgement-This research was supported by the Medical Research Service of the Veteran’s Administration.
BIGGS, J. T., WYLIE, L. T. and ZIEGLER, V. E. (1978) Validity of the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale.
Br. J. Psychiat. 132,381-385.
BLUMENTAL, M. D. (1975) Measuring depressive symptomatology in a general population. Archs gen. Psychiat.
BRINK, T. A., YESAVAGE, J. A., LUM, O., HEERSEMA, P., ADEY, M. and ROSE, T. L. (1982) Screening tests for
geriatric depression. C/in. Geronfologist 1,37-44.
CARROLL, B. J. (1978) Validity of the Zung Self-Rating Scale (letter to the editor). Br. J. Psychiat. 133, 379.
CARROLL, B. J., FIELDING, J. M. and BLASHKI, T. G. (1973) Depression rating scales: a critical review. Archsgen.
Psychiat. 28,361-366.
CHRONBACH, L. J. (195 I) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16, 297-334.
(1981) Sleep-wake disorders in the elderly: a polysomnographic analysis. J. Am. Geriat. Sot. 29, 289-296.
age, health status, and depressive symptoms in normal and depressed older adults. Essence 5,99-l 17.
FERGUSON, G. A. (1971) Statistical Analysis in Psychology and Education, 3rd edn., pp. 171-172. McGraw-
Hill, New York.
FOLSTEIN, M. F., FOLSTEIN, S. E. and MCHUGH, P. R. (1975) Mini-mental state: a practical method for grading
the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. psychiat. Res. 12, 189-198.
GALLAGHER, D., SLIFE, B. and YESAVAGE, J. A. (1983) Impact of physical health status on scores of older
adults on the Hamilton rating scale for depression. Under Editorial review.
GURLAND, B. J. (1976) The comparative frequency of depression in various adult age groups. J. Geront. 31,
HAMILTON, M. (1960) A rating scale for depression. J. Neural. Neurosurg. Psychiat. 23,56-62.
HAMILTON, M. (1967) Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness. Br. J. Sot. C/in. Psycho/. 6,
HEDLUND, J. L. and VIEWEG, B. W. (1979) The Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale: a comprehensive review.
J. opl Psychiat. 10, 5 I-64.
JARVIK, L. F. (1976) Aging and depression: some unanswered questions. J. Geront. 31,324-326.
KAHN, R. L., ZARIT, S. H., HILBERT, N. M. and NIEDEREHE, G. (1975) Memory complaint and impairment in
the aged: the effect of depression and altered brain function. Archsgen. Psychiat. 32, 1569-1573.
KNESEVICH, J. W., BIGGS, J. T., CLAYTON, P. J. and ZIEGLER, V. E. (1977) Validity of the Hamilton Rating
Scale for Depression. Br. J. Psychiat. 131,49-52.
KOCHANSKY, G. E. (1979) Psychiatric rating scales for assessing psychopathology in the elderly: a critical review.
In Psychiatric Symptoms and Cognitive Loss in the Elderly: Evaluation of Assessment Techniques (Edited by
RASKIN, A. and JARVIK, L. F.), pp. 125-156. Wiley, New York.
LYERLY, S. B. (1978) Handbook of Psychiatric Rating Scales, 2nd edn. National Institute of Mental Health,
Rockville, Maryland.
MCNAIR, D. M. (1979) Self-rating scales for assessing psychopathology in the elderly. In Psychiatric Symptoms
and Cognitive Loss in the Elderly: Evaluation and Assessment Techniques (Edited by RASKIN, A. and
JARVIK, L. F.), pp. 157-167. Wiley, New York.
NUNNALLY, J. (1967) Psychometric Theory, p. 194. McGraw-Hill, New York.
SALZMAN, C. and SHADER, R. 1. (1978) Depression in the elderly: relationship between depression, psychologic
defense mechanisms and physical illness. J. Am. Geriat. Sot. 26,253-259.
SCHNURR, R., HOAKEN, P. C. S. and JARRETT, F. J. (1976) Comparison of depression inventories in a clinical
population. Can. psychiat. Ass. J. 21,473-476.
SPITZER, R. L., ENDICOTT, J. and ROBINS, E. (1978) Research Diagnostic Criteria: rationale and reliability.
Archsgen. Psychiat. 35,773-782.
STEUER, J., BANK, L., OLSEN, E. J. and JARVIK, L. F. (1980) Depression, physical health and somatic complaints
in the elderly: a study of the Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale. J. Geront. 35,683-688.
WELLS, C. E. (1979) Pseudodementia. Am. J. Psychiat. 136,895~900.
ZUNG, W. W. K. (1965) A self-rating depressionscale. Archsgen. Psychiat. 12,63-70.
ZUNG, W. W. K. and GREEN, R. L., JR. (1973) Detection of affective orders in the aged. In Psychopharmacology
andAging (Edited by EISDORFER, C. and FANN, W. E.), pp. 213-223. Plenum Press, New York.