Keywords
Depression
Factor analysis
Reliability and validity
Validation studies
Factor analysis
Reliability and validity
Validation studies
How to Cite
Gómez-Bustamante, E. ., Cogollo-Milanés, Z. ., Herazo, E. ., Caballero-Domínguez, C. ., & Campo-Arias, A. . (2019). Dimensional and internal structure of the Zung’ self-rating depression scale in urban recyclable waste pickers. Duazary, 16(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.21676/2389783X.3149
Abstract
The dimensional and internal structure of the instruments can vary significantly according to the population. The objective of the study was to corroborate the dimensional and internal structure of the Zung’s brief scale in people dedicated to the recycling of urban waste. A methodological study was designed. A sample of 206 adults, between 18 and 70 years (M=37.7, SD=12.5); 147 men and 59 women. Participants completed the ten items of the scale. The dimensional structure was tested by confirmatory factor analysis and calculated goodness-of-fit indexes: chi-square, RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation), CFI (Comparative Fit Index), TLI (Tucker-Lewis index) and SMSR (Standardized Mean Square Residual). The internal structure was tested with Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. The two-dimensional structure was tested: the first factor (depressed mood-anxiety) and the second (anhedonia-cognition). The fit indices were chi square=126.83, degrees of freedom=34, p=0.001; RMSEA=0.115 (IC90% 0.094-0.137), CFI=0.851, TLI=0.802, and SRMS=0.075. The first dimension showed both Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega of 0.80; and the second, alpha of 0.71 and omega of 0.72. The structure of the Zung scale for depression was not corroborated. A larger sample can give more conclusive information.References
1. Streiner D, Norman G. Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use. 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.
2. Keszei AP, Novak M, Streiner DL. Introduction to health measurement scales. J Psychosom Res. 2010; 68(4):319-23.
3. Reise SP, Waller NG, Comrey AL. Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychol Assess 2000; 12(3):287-97.
4. Zung WWK. Self-report depression scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965; 12(1):63-70.
5. Sakamoto S, Kijima N, Tomoda A, Kambara M. Factor structures of the Zung Self‐Rating Depression Scale (SDS) for undergraduates. J Clin Psychol. 1998; 54(4):477-87.
6. Kitamura T, Hirano H, Chen Z, Hirata M. Factor structure of the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale in first-year university students in Japan. Psychiatry Res. 2004; 128(3):281-7.
7. Romera I, Delgado-Cohen H, Perez T, Caballero L, Gilaberte I. Factor analysis of the Zung self-rating depression scale in a large sample of patients with major depressive disorder in primary care. BMC Psychiatry. 2008; 8(1):4.
8. Kruyen PM, Emons WH, Sijtsma K. On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. Int J Testing. 2013; 13(3):223-48.
9. Ziegler M, Kemper CJ, Kruyen P. Short scales–Five misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. J Indiv Differ. 2014; 35(4):185-9.
10. Norman GR, Streiner DL. Bioestadística Madrid: Mosby/Doyma libros; 1996.
11. Heene M, Bollmann S, Bühner, M. Much ado about nothing, or much to do about something? J Indiv Differ. 2014; 35(4):245-9.
12. Díaz LA, Campo A, Rueda GE, Barros JA. Propuesta de una versión abreviada de la escala de Zung para depresión. Colomb Med. 2005; 36(3):168-72.
13. Campo-Arias A, Herazo E. Estigma y salud mental en personas víctimas del conflicto armado interno colombiano en situación de desplazamiento forzado. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2014; 43(4):212-7.
14. Resolución 008430 por la cual se establecen las normas científicas, técnicas y administrativas para la investigación en salud. Bogotá: Ministerio de Salud de Colombia; 1993.
15. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorder. 5th edition. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
16. Sousa VM, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 2011; 17(2):268-74.
17. Campo-Arias A, Díaz-Martínez LA, Rueda-Jaimes GE, Cadena LP, Hernández NL. Validation of Zung’s self-rating depression scale among the Colombian general population. Social Behav Person. 2006; 34(1):87-94.
18. Campo A, Díaz LA, Rueda GE. Validez de la escala breve de Zung para tamizaje del episodio depresivo mayor en la población general de Bucaramanga, Colombia. Biomédica. 2006; 26(3):415-23.
19. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press; 2006. p. 494.
20. Cronbach J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test. Psychometrika. 1951; 16 (3):297-334.
21. McDonald RP. Theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis and alpha factor analysis. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1970; 23(1):1-21.
22. Watkins MW. The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: from alpha to omega. Clin Neuropsychol. 2017; 31(6-7):1113-26.
23. STATA 13.0. College Station: STATA; 2013.
24. Swain SD, Weathers D, Niedrich RW. Assessing three sources of misresponse to reversed Likert items. J Market Res. 2008; 45(1):116-31.
25. Weijters B, Baumgartner H. Misresponse to reversed and negated items in surveys: A review. J Market Res. 2012; 49(5):737-47.
26. Oviedo HC, Campo Arias A. Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Rev Colomb Psiquiatria. 2005; 34(4): 572-9.
27. Campo-Arias A, Oviedo HC. Propiedades psicométricas de una escala: la consistencia interna. Rev Salud Publica. 2008; 10(5):831-9.
28. Cho E, Kim S. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Well known but poorly understood. Organ Res Method. 2015; 18(2):207-30.
29. Trizano-Hermosilla I, Alvarado JM. Best alternatives to Cronbach's alpha reliability in realistic conditions: congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Front Psychol. 2016; 7:769.
30. Campo-Arias A, Herazo E, Oviedo HC. Análisis de factores: fundamentos para la evaluación de instrumentos de medición en salud mental. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2012; 41(3):659-71.
31. MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Method. 1999; 4(1):84-99.
32. Matsunaga M. How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. Int J Psychol Res. 2010; 3(1):97-110.
2. Keszei AP, Novak M, Streiner DL. Introduction to health measurement scales. J Psychosom Res. 2010; 68(4):319-23.
3. Reise SP, Waller NG, Comrey AL. Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychol Assess 2000; 12(3):287-97.
4. Zung WWK. Self-report depression scale. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1965; 12(1):63-70.
5. Sakamoto S, Kijima N, Tomoda A, Kambara M. Factor structures of the Zung Self‐Rating Depression Scale (SDS) for undergraduates. J Clin Psychol. 1998; 54(4):477-87.
6. Kitamura T, Hirano H, Chen Z, Hirata M. Factor structure of the Zung Self-rating Depression Scale in first-year university students in Japan. Psychiatry Res. 2004; 128(3):281-7.
7. Romera I, Delgado-Cohen H, Perez T, Caballero L, Gilaberte I. Factor analysis of the Zung self-rating depression scale in a large sample of patients with major depressive disorder in primary care. BMC Psychiatry. 2008; 8(1):4.
8. Kruyen PM, Emons WH, Sijtsma K. On the shortcomings of shortened tests: A literature review. Int J Testing. 2013; 13(3):223-48.
9. Ziegler M, Kemper CJ, Kruyen P. Short scales–Five misunderstandings and ways to overcome them. J Indiv Differ. 2014; 35(4):185-9.
10. Norman GR, Streiner DL. Bioestadística Madrid: Mosby/Doyma libros; 1996.
11. Heene M, Bollmann S, Bühner, M. Much ado about nothing, or much to do about something? J Indiv Differ. 2014; 35(4):245-9.
12. Díaz LA, Campo A, Rueda GE, Barros JA. Propuesta de una versión abreviada de la escala de Zung para depresión. Colomb Med. 2005; 36(3):168-72.
13. Campo-Arias A, Herazo E. Estigma y salud mental en personas víctimas del conflicto armado interno colombiano en situación de desplazamiento forzado. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2014; 43(4):212-7.
14. Resolución 008430 por la cual se establecen las normas científicas, técnicas y administrativas para la investigación en salud. Bogotá: Ministerio de Salud de Colombia; 1993.
15. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental disorder. 5th edition. Washington DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
16. Sousa VM, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: a clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 2011; 17(2):268-74.
17. Campo-Arias A, Díaz-Martínez LA, Rueda-Jaimes GE, Cadena LP, Hernández NL. Validation of Zung’s self-rating depression scale among the Colombian general population. Social Behav Person. 2006; 34(1):87-94.
18. Campo A, Díaz LA, Rueda GE. Validez de la escala breve de Zung para tamizaje del episodio depresivo mayor en la población general de Bucaramanga, Colombia. Biomédica. 2006; 26(3):415-23.
19. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press; 2006. p. 494.
20. Cronbach J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test. Psychometrika. 1951; 16 (3):297-334.
21. McDonald RP. Theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis and alpha factor analysis. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1970; 23(1):1-21.
22. Watkins MW. The reliability of multidimensional neuropsychological measures: from alpha to omega. Clin Neuropsychol. 2017; 31(6-7):1113-26.
23. STATA 13.0. College Station: STATA; 2013.
24. Swain SD, Weathers D, Niedrich RW. Assessing three sources of misresponse to reversed Likert items. J Market Res. 2008; 45(1):116-31.
25. Weijters B, Baumgartner H. Misresponse to reversed and negated items in surveys: A review. J Market Res. 2012; 49(5):737-47.
26. Oviedo HC, Campo Arias A. Aproximación al uso del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach. Rev Colomb Psiquiatria. 2005; 34(4): 572-9.
27. Campo-Arias A, Oviedo HC. Propiedades psicométricas de una escala: la consistencia interna. Rev Salud Publica. 2008; 10(5):831-9.
28. Cho E, Kim S. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: Well known but poorly understood. Organ Res Method. 2015; 18(2):207-30.
29. Trizano-Hermosilla I, Alvarado JM. Best alternatives to Cronbach's alpha reliability in realistic conditions: congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Front Psychol. 2016; 7:769.
30. Campo-Arias A, Herazo E, Oviedo HC. Análisis de factores: fundamentos para la evaluación de instrumentos de medición en salud mental. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2012; 41(3):659-71.
31. MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Zhang S, Hong S. Sample size in factor analysis. Psychol Method. 1999; 4(1):84-99.
32. Matsunaga M. How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s, don’ts, and how-to’s. Int J Psychol Res. 2010; 3(1):97-110.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.