Validation studies of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale for the antenatal period

Abstract Background Relatively few studies have focused on the validation of psychometric scales measuring depression during pregnancy. The aim of this review was to critically appraise and review antenatal validation studies of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). Methods A systematic s...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of affective disorders 2015-05, Vol.176, p.95-105
Main Authors: Kozinszky, Zoltan, Dudas, Robert B
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Antepartum
Depressive Disorder, Major - diagnosis
Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
Female
Humans
Pregnancy
Pregnancy Complications - diagnosis
Psychiatric Status Rating Scales - standards
Psychiatry
Psychometrics
Review
Validation
Validation Studies as Topic
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Background Relatively few studies have focused on the validation of psychometric scales measuring depression during pregnancy. The aim of this review was to critically appraise and review antenatal validation studies of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). Methods A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI, CINAHL, SCIELO and PsyCINFO for the period 1987–2013. Results Eleven validation studies met the inclusion criteria. The study design varied between studies. Sensitivity and specificity estimates also varied between 64–100% and 73–100%, respectively. The confidence interval estimates also showed a high degree of variability. Our estimates suggest lower positive predictive values in the general population than those reported in the validation study samples. The sensitivity values in validation studies of the EPDS show fairly large variability, ranging from good to acceptable. Limitations Future studies should have larger sample sizes and include both representative and clinical samples and look at the psychometric performance of the EPDS in each trimester. Conclusions Due to differences in study design and variation in the cultural/linguistic adaptation, uncertainty remains regarding the comparability of the sensitivity and specificity estimates of different EPDS versions. Future studies should have larger sample sizes, include both representative and clinical samples, and look at the psychometric performance of the EPDS in each trimester. Reporting quality, especially as regards checks to ensure content validity, should be improved.
ISSN:0165-0327
1573-2517
DOI:10.1016/j.jad.2015.01.044