The mean CES-D scores for the community and clinic samples were 10.14 and 14.23, respectively, with a range of 0-49 in the community sample and 0-48 in the clinic sample (out of a possible 60).
In Tables 2 and 3, item-by-item descriptive analyses of CES-D are shown.
Due to the inconsistencies of the factor structure of CES-D when administered to a black population, EFA was used to analyze the factor structure of the CES-D on our samples.
Thirteen of the CES-D items loaded together as the first factor (>.40).
For the first factor, which included 13 of the CES-D items, six out of seven depressive items and all seven somatic items accounted for 32.75% of the variance in the model (Eigenvalue = 6.55).
About 26% of the community sample and 48% of the clinic sample scored 16 or higher on the CES-D compared to Foley et al.'s study, which showed that 14% of the older blacks (men and women) scored 16 or higher.
Many studies that utilized the CES-D have not typically reported sex differences in subscales.
Some researchers feel that CES-D is not an effective instrument to detect depression among older blacks because older blacks are more likely to report somatic symptoms (Collen, 1995).
The effects of gender and race on the measurement properties of CES-D in older adults.
Structure of depression measure among American Indian elders: Confirmatory factor analysis of the CES-D scale.
Test of item-response bias in the CES-D scale: Experience from the New Haven EPESE Study.
Measurement adequacy of the CES-D among a sample of older African-Americans.