Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #106935

Ashley S. Love, DrPH, MPH, MS, Department of Health and Kinesiology, University of Texas at San Antonio, College of Education and Human Development, 6900 North Loop 1604 West, San Antonio, TX 78249, 210 458-6226, ashley.love@utsa.edu, Robert J. Love, DO, MS, Department of Psychiatry, University of Health Sciences at San Antonio; Wilford Hall, Lackland AFB, Medical Drive, San Antoio, TX 78254, Steven M. Albert, PhD, MSc, Gertrude H. Sergievsky Center, Columbia University, PH-19, 630 West 168th St., New York, NY 07666, and Alfred Ashford, MD, Department of Medicine, Harlem Hospital Center, MLK Pavilion, New York, NY 11733.

Objective: This study investigated the measurement suitablity of CES-D when it is administed to older urban Black men in the clinic and community settings. Methods: Two samples of older Black men in Harlem Men's Health Study (clinic=404; community n=319) were used in this study. The following analyses were performed on both samples separately: total score of the CES-D; item-by-item statistics; internal reliability of total scale and item-total correlations using Cronbach's alpha; and two stage exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal component with no rotation (stage 1) and an orthogonal (Varimax) rotation (stage 2) based on scree plot and Eigenvalues of stage 1. Results: Cronbach's alphas were acceptable (&alpha= 0.8815 for clinic and &alpha = 0.9152 for community). Three factors emerged in both clinic and community samples instead of the four factors originally found in Radloff's study. The responses from both clinic and community samples were skewed toward less depressive symptomatology. Thirteen of the CES-D items loaded together as the first factor (depressive/somatic). There was no distinction between depressive and somatic factors. Interpersonal distress, “unfriendly” and “dislike” measured differently in two Harlem samples. “Crying” item (depressive affect item) loaded as interpersonal distress in both clinic and community. “Appetite," somatic factor, loaded differently in clinic and community. Conclusion: These results show that the four factor model of CES-D may not be applicable to older urban Black men and interpretations of these results should be made with caution in community and clinical settings.

Learning Objectives: At the conclusion of the session, the participants in this session will be able to

• Recognize the four factor model of CES-D may not be suitable to older urban Black men
• Discuss the three factors that were identified in the community and clinic samples of older urban Black men
• Evaluate standardized research instruments such as CES-D and what the results mean to older minority population in research and community settings

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

I wish to disclose that I have NO financial interests or other relationship with the manufactures of commercial products, suppliers of commercial services or commercial supporters.