Normalization procedure for the Baptista Depression Scale - Adult Version (EBADEP-A): transferring of norms

Abstract

Regarding the standardization of psychological instruments, that is, the construction of referential interpretations of a test, we can find different procedures performed both by Classical Test Theory and the Theory of Item Response. Especially in this case (IRT), we can admit a test as a norm, in order to use its standardization and transfer the cutoff point to another instrument. Based on this information, the present study aimed to provide a cutoff score for the Baptista Depression Scale-Adult Version (EBADEP-A) through procedures of norms-transfer based on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D). The EBADEP-A presented good distribution and ability to discriminate depressive symptoms, and the sample, consisting of Brazilian College students, received a cutoff score of 32 points. It is emphasized that this is an exploratory and preliminary study, and it we suggest further analyzes to be performed with clinical samples for which results can be corroborated or confronted.

Diagnostic accuracy of a Brazilian depression self-report measure (EBADEP): Original and short versions

“…Another important characteristic of the two versions is that, as expected in screening scales, sensitivity should be higher than specificity, exactly what occurred in the present research (Andreoli, et al, 1998;Fletcher et al, 1996). In this sense, the practitioner who has more time to spend in the assessment/follow-up of cases and is more concerned both with quantitative and qualitative data can benefit more from using the full version of the scale, while the evaluator who needs a brief testing may benefit from the short version of EBADEP-A, since there is only a little loss of diagnostic accuracy between the versions.…”

“…It is also important to note that, for some disorders, only the detection of symptoms present in the psychiatric manuals may not be adequate for the accurate diagnostic, the reason why it is important to use complementary scales and screening (Soares, Moreno, Moura, Angst, & Moreno, 2010). In this sense, the objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of two versions of EBADEP-A, since accuracy is one of the most important psychometric characteristics of a diagnostic test (Andreoli et al, 1998;Fletcher et al, 1996).…”

“…A cut-off is then established at the point that best favors the tradeoff between high sensitivity and specificity. On the other hand, in the case of screening tests, when one cannot run the risk of identifying people as healthy when they have the disorder, sensitivity should be preferred over specificity, which might increase false positives, but also minimize the occurrence of false negatives (Andreoli, Blay & Mari, 1998;Fletcher, Fletcher & Wagner, 1996;Klein & Costa, 1987). Moreover, screening tests must be less costly and time-consuming when compared to longer tests, even though they might be a bit less specific.…”

Vitor Quality of Life Scale for the Elderly: evidence of validity and reliability

“…Besides the VITOR QLSE, a sociodemographic questionnaire (Silva and Kimura 2002), a mental status questionnaire (Kahn et al 1960), the Brazilian-Portuguese version of the WHOQOL-OLD (Fleck et al 2006), and the Baptista Depression Scale - adult version (EBADEP-A) (Baptista and Cardoso 2012; Gomes and Baptista 2014) were used in the study.…”

“…The ABADEP-A (Baptista and Cardoso 2012, Gomes and Baptista 2014) is a self-report measure of depressive symptoms in adults. It is composed of 45 items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale and averaged into an overall score ranging from 0 to 135, with lower scores indicating less depressive symptomatology.…”