28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Identifying hopelessness in population research: a validation study of two brief measures of hopelessness

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Hopelessness is an important construct in psychosocial epidemiology, but there is great pressure on the length of questionnaire measures in large-scale population and clinical studies. We examined the validity and test–retest reliability of two brief measures of hopelessness, an existing negatively worded two-item measure of hopelessness (Brief-H-Neg) and a positively worded version of the same instrument (Brief-H-Pos).

          Design

          Cohort study.

          Setting

          Control arm of the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening.

          Participants

          A non-clinical research-based sample of 5000 postmenopausal women selected from 56 512 participants.

          Primary and secondary outcome measures

          Spearman's rank correlation of brief measures of hopelessness with the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS). Spearman's rank correlation with the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and change in mean score on repeat testing.

          Methods

          Two short hopelessness measures, a negatively worded brief measure of hopelessness (Brief-H-Neg) and a positively worded brief measure of hopelessness (Brief-H-Pos), were administered by postal questionnaire to 5000 women together with the 20-item BHS and 20-item CES-D. The Brief-H-Neg and Brief-H-Pos were readministered to 500 women after a 2-week interval.

          Results

          2413 postmenopausal women (mean age 68.9 years) completed the questionnaire. The Brief-H-Neg and Brief-H-Pos correlated 0.93 and 0.87 with the BHS after correction for attenuation and their association with the CES-D mirrored that seen with the BHS (Spearman's rank correlation 0.88 and 0.68, respectively). There was no change in mean scores on the two measures with repeat testing in the 433 women who completed them and test–retest reliability was good (intraclass correlations Brief-H-Neg 0.67 and Brief-H-Pos 0.72).

          Conclusions

          These findings provide support for the validity of the Brief-H-Neg and Brief-H-Pos. These brief measures are likely to be useful in large population studies assessing hopelessness.

          Trial registration number

          NCT00058032.

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests

          Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population

            L Radloff (1977)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2014
                30 May 2014
                : 4
                : 5
                : e005093
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Women's Cancer, UCL Institute for Women's Health and NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre , London, UK
                [2 ]University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust , London, UK
                [3 ]Faculty of Medicine & Pharmacy, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) , Brussels, Belgium
                [4 ]Free University of Brussels (VUB), Faculty of Medicine & Pharmacy, Brussels , Belgium
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Lindsay Fraser; l.fraser@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                Article
                bmjopen-2014-005093
                10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005093
                4039863
                24879829
                d9ecc793-a1c9-40e6-a1a4-5a58dcf35061
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/

                History
                : 19 February 2014
                : 28 April 2014
                : 12 May 2014
                Categories
                Epidemiology
                Research
                1506
                1692
                1712

                Medicine
                epidemiology,mental health
                Medicine
                epidemiology, mental health

                Comments

                Comment on this article