Key result
BASDEC outperforms BDI-FS for detecting post-stroke depression, achieving ~100% sensitivity and higher specificity.
Cross-Sectional (n=49)
Yes
OBJECTIVE: To conduct an initial assessment of the reliability and validity of the Brief Assessment Schedule Depression Cards (BASDEC) and the Beck Depression Inventory-Fast Screen (BDI-FS) to screen for depression in older stroke survivors. METHODS: Participants from four inpatient rehabilitation units completed the BASDEC and the BDI-FS together with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for comparison. The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis 1 Disorders (SCID) was then completed with all participants to ascertain a criterion depression diagnosis. The BASDEC and BDI-FS were subsequently completed for a second time. RESULTS: Forty-nine stroke survivors (M=78.80, SD=6.79 years) were included. The BASDEC and BDI-FS demonstrated acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The BASDEC (cut-off >or=7) resulted in a sensitivity of 1.0 and specificity of 0.95 for detecting major depression whereas the BDI-FS (cut-off >or=4) had a sensitivity of 0.71 and specificity of 0.74. When participants with minor depression were included in analyses, sensitivity lowered to 0.69 (specificity=0.97) for the BASDEC and 0.62 (specificity=0.78) for the BDI-FS. CONCLUSIONS: The BASDEC and BDI-FS were found to have acceptable reliability. The BASDEC demonstrated some advantage in criterion validity over the BDI-FS at the examined cut-offs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Healey et al. (2007) conducted a cross-sectional in Depression in older stroke survivors (n=49). Brief Assessment Schedule Depression Cards (BASDEC) vs. Beck Depression Inventory-Fast Screen (BDI-FS) was evaluated on Detection of major depression. The BASDEC demonstrated higher criterion validity than the BDI-FS for detecting major depression in older stroke survivors (sensitivity 1.0 vs 0.71; specificity 0.95 vs 0.74).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: