TY - JOUR
T1 - Validity of the GDS-4 revisited
AU - CHENG, Sheung Tak
AU - CHAN, Cheung Ming, Alfred
PY - 2008/10/1
Y1 - 2008/10/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://commons.ln.edu.hk/sw_master/2440
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=54349089180&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13548500801932402
DO - 10.1080/13548500801932402
M3 - Journal Article (refereed)
SN - 1354-8506
VL - 13
SP - 621
EP - 626
JO - Psychology, Health and Medicine
JF - Psychology, Health and Medicine
IS - 5
ER -