We evaluated whether "more is ever too much" for the number of indicators (p) per factor (p/f) in confirmatory factor analysis by varying sample size (N = 50-1000) and p/f (2-12 items per factor) in 35,000 Monte Carlo solutions. For all N's, solution behavior steadily improved (more proper solutions, more accurate parameter estimates, greater reliability) with increasing p/f. There was a compensatory relation between N and p/f: large p/f compensated for small N and large N compensated for small p/f, but large-N and large-p/f was best. A bias in the behavior of the χ(2) was also demonstrated where apparent goodness of fit declined with increasing p/f ratios even though approximating models were "true". Fit was similar for proper and improper solutions, as were parameter estimates form improper solutions not involving offending estimates. We also used the 12-p/f data to construct 2, 3, 4, or 6 parcels of items (e.g., two parcels of 6 items per factor, three parcels of 4 items per factor, etc.), but the 12-indicator (nonparceled) solutions were somewhat better behaved. At least for conditions in our simulation study, traditional "rules" implying fewer indicators should be used for smaller N may be inappropriate and researchers should consider using more indicators per factor that is evident in current practice.

To aid general practitioners and other non-psychiatrists in the better recognition of mental illness short scales measuring anxiety and depression were derived by latent trait analysis from a standardised psychiatric research interview. Designed to be used by non-psychiatrists, they provide dimensional measures of the severity of each disorder. The full set of nine questions need be administered only if there are positive answers to the first four. When assessed against the full set of 60 questions contained in the psychiatric assessment schedule they had a specificity of 91% and a sensitivity of 86%.The scales would be used by non-psychiatrists in clinical investigations and possibly also by medical students to familiarise them with the common forms of psychiatric illness, which are often unrecognised in general medical settings.

SynopsisA survey was made of 274 non-institutionalized persons aged 70 and over living in Hobart. The prevalence of dementia and of depression was measured by interviewing subjects using a modified version of the Geriatric Mental State Schedule (GMS) (Copeland et al. 1976) and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) (Folstein et al. 1975). Rates of morbidity were derived from different diagnostic procedures. These were: (1) diagnoses made by a psychiatrist (A.S.H.) directly from the interview schedules and audiotapes, and rated as mild, moderate or severe; (2) the criteria laid down in DSM-III, converted into algorithms describing 3 degrees of severity; and (3) the algorithms for pervasive dementia and depression proposed by Gurland et al. (1983), and from these authors' rational scales. In addition, the relation between scales for dementia and for depression and the diagnosed categories was examined. Some problems in applying these methods to aged persons in the community are discussed. It is concluded that more detailed specification of criteria is desirable if the comparative epidemiology of dementia and depression in old age is to advance.

No abstract