Struktur Faktor dan Reliabilitas Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Versi Ringkas (CESD-10) Pada Sampel Lansia di Indonesia

Suwanda Priyadi

doi:10.36341/psi.v6i2.3130

Suwanda Priyadi Magister Psikologi, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Indonesia

: https://doi.org/10.36341/psi.v6i2.3130

Abstract

Salah satu skala psikologis yang sering digunakan untuk penilaian depresi adalah Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale versi ringkas (CESD-10). Penelitian ini menguji struktur faktor dan reliabilitas CESD-10 pada sampel lansia di Indonesia. Sampel berasal dari Indonesia Family Life Survey gelombang kelima (IFLS5). Total sampel 2,932 lansia (rerata usia= 67.4; simpangan baku usia= 6.32) yang terdiri dari 1,418 laki-laki dan 1,514 perempuan. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) menunjukkan model satu-faktor yang memuaskan dengan data (χ²(34) = 394.015; root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .060; standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) = .055; comparative fit index (CFI) = .957) setelah mengkorelasikan satu pasang varians residu aitem. Meskipun demikian, terdapat dua aitem CESD-10 yang memiliki muatan faktor yang rendah. Sementara itu, analisis reliabilitas menunjukkan nilai omega sebesar .66. Secara umum, CESD-10 adalah instrumen yang valid dan reliabel pada sampel lansia di Indonesia. Sehingga, CESD-10 dapat digunakan untuk lansia di Indonesia.

Keywords: validitas, struktur faktor, reliabilitas, depresi, CES-D, lansia, indonesia

References

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.

Andresen, E. M., Malmgren, J. A., Carter, W. B., & Patrick, D. L. (1994). Screening for depression in well older adults: Evaluation of a short form of the CES-D. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 10(2), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(18)30622-6

Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Carlson, M., Wilcox, R., Chou, C.-P., Chang, M., Yang, F., Blanchard, J., Marterella, A., Kuo, A., & Clark, F. (2011). Psychometric properties of reverse-scored items on the CES-D in a sample of ethnically diverse older adults. Psychological assessment, 23(2), 558–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022484

Chang, T.-H., & Jhang, F. H. (2021). The latent structure of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) among older adults in China. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 6–9. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.211122.046

Chen, H., & Mui, A. C. (2014). Factorial validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale short form in older population in China. International Psychogeriatrics, 26(1), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610213001701

Cheng, S.-T., Chan, A. C. M., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Factorial structure of a short version of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(4), 333–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1467

Chisholm, D., Sweeny, K., Sheehan, P., Rasmussen, B., Smit, F., Cuijpers, P., & Saxena, S. (2016). Scaling-up treatment of depression and anxiety: A global return on investment analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 3(5), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30024-4

Comtois, D. (2022). summarytools: Tools to quickly and neatly summarize data (1.0.1). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=summarytools

DeVellis, R. F. (2017). Scale development: Theory and applications (4th ed.). SAGE.

Epskamp, S. (2015). semPlot: Unified visualizations of structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(3), 474–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.937847

Hanum, L., Utoyo, D. B., & Jaya, E. S. (2018). Indonesian older adults’ mental health: An overview. Psychological Research on Urban Society, 1(2), 74. https://doi.org/10.7454/proust.v1i2.33

Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Idaiani, S., & Indrawati, L. (2021). Functional status in relation to depression among elderly individuals in Indonesia: A cross-sectional analysis of the Indonesian National Health Survey 2018 among elderly individuals. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 2332. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12260-z

James, C., Powell, M., Seixas, A., Bateman, A., Pengpid, S., & Peltzer, K. (2020). Exploring the psychometric properties of the CES‐D‐10 and its practicality in detecting depressive symptomatology in 27 low‐ and middle‐income countries. International Journal of Psychology, 55(3), 435–445. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12613

Jang, Y., Kwag, K. H., & Chiriboga, D. A. (2010). Not saying i am happy does not mean i am not: Cultural influences on responses to positive affect items in the CES-D. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65B(6), 684–690. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbq052

Jorgensen, T. D., Pornprasertmanit, S., Schoemann, A. M., Rosseel, Y., Miller, P., Quick, C., Garnier-Villarreal, M., Selig, J., Boulton, A., Preacher, K., Coffman, D., Rhemtulla, M., Robitzsch, A., Enders, C., Arslan, R., Clinton, B., Panko, P., Merkle, E., Chesnut, S., … Johnson, A. R. (2022). semTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling (0.5-6). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=semTools

Karim, J., Weisz, R., Bibi, Z., & ur Rehman, S. (2015). Validation of the eight-item Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) among older adults. Current Psychology, 34(4), 681–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-014-9281-y

Lee, A. E. Y., & Chokkanathan, S. (2008). Factor structure of the 10-item CES-D scale among community dwelling older adults in Singapore. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 23(6), 592–597. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.1944

Li, C.-H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7

Mackinnon, A., McCallum, J., Andrews, G., & Anderson, I. (1998). The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale in older community samples in Indonesia, North Korea, Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and Thailand. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 53B(6), P343–P352. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/53B.6.P343

Mohebbi, M., Nguyen, V., McNeil, J. J., Woods, R. L., Nelson, M. R., Shah, R. C., Storey, E., Murray, A. M., Reid, C. M., Kirpach, B., Wolfe, R., Lockery, J. E., & Berk, M. (2018). Psychometric properties of a short form of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D-10) scale for screening depressive symptoms in healthy community dwelling older adults. General Hospital Psychiatry, 51, 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2017.08.002

O’Halloran, A. M., Kenny, R. A., & King-Kallimanis, B. L. (2014). The latent factors of depression from the short forms of the CES-D are consistent, reliable and valid in community-living older adults. European Geriatric Medicine, 5(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurger.2013.12.004

R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (4.1.3). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306

Revelle, W. (2021). psych: Procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research (2.1.9). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

RStudio Team. (2022). RStudio: Integrated development environment for R (2022.2.0.443). RStudio, PBC. http://www.rstudio.com/

Stansbury, J. P., Ried, L. D., & Velozo, C. A. (2006). Unidimensionality and bandwidth in the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES–D) Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8601_03

Strauss, J., Witoelar, F., & Sikoki, B. (2016a). The fifth wave of the Indonesia family life survey: Overview and field report (Working Paper WR-1143/1-NIA/NICHD). RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/WR1143.1

Strauss, J., Witoelar, F., & Sikoki, B. (2016b). Household survey questionnaire for the Indonesia Family Life Survey, wave 5 (Working Paper WR-1143/3-NIA/NICHD). RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/working_papers/WR1143z3.html

Tim Riskesdas 2018. (2019). Laporan nasional RISKESDAS 2018. Lembaga Penerbitan Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan Kesehatan. http://repository.bkpk.kemkes.go.id/3514/1/Laporan%20Riskesdas%202018%20Nasional.pdf

Van Noorden, R., Maher, B., & Nuzzo, R. (2014). The top 100 papers. Nature, 514(7524), 550–553. https://doi.org/10.1038/514550a

Widhiarso, W. (2016). Peranan butir unfavorabel dalam menghasilkan dimensi baru dalam pengukuran psikologi. Jurnal Psikologi Perseptual, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.24176/perseptual.v1i1.1078

Wood, A. M., Taylor, P. J., & Joseph, S. (2010). Does the CES-D measure a continuum from depression to happiness? Comparing substantive and artifactual models. Psychiatry Research, 177(1–2), 120–123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2010.02.003

World Health Organization. (2021, September 13). Depression. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression

Yu, S.-C., Lin, Y.-H., & Hsu, W.-H. (2013). Applying structural equation modeling to report psychometric properties of Chinese version 10-item CES-D depression scale. Quality & Quantity, 47(3), 1511–1518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9604-0