Validity of the GDS-4 revisited

Sheung Tak CHENG, Cheung Ming, Alfred CHAN

Research output: Journal PublicationsJournal Article (refereed)peer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)


This article points out several flaws in an earlier article (Chau, Martin, Thompson, Chang, and Woo, 2006). We note that Chau, Martin, Thompson, Chang, and Woo (2006) had misquoted our work on a 4-item version of the geriatric depression scale (GDS), and the work of the research team, which developed the original 30-item and 15-item versions of the scale. Furthermore, their data analytic methods were flawed, and their conclusions were often not supported by the data they presented. On the basis of these observations, we found no evidence against the use of the 4-item version of the GDS.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)621-626
Number of pages6
JournalPsychology, Health and Medicine
Issue number5
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2008


Dive into the research topics of 'Validity of the GDS-4 revisited'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this