Abstract
This study examined the errors made by clinicians when scoring the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS). This measure has items with reverse scoring that may increase the likelihood of errors being made. Four hundred ninety-six EPDS forms from client files in four clinical services were examined for item scoring errors and addition errors. Clinicians (N = 22) from the four services were also surveyed as to what rate of errors they expected the study would find and what rate would be unacceptable. Errors of either type were present in between 13.4 and 28.9 % of forms across the four sites. These error rates were greater than most of the surveyed clinicians expected and were at a level that was considered by most to be problematic. However, the error rates did not have a meaningful impact on the rates of women scoring above various cutoff scores often used with the EPDS. The EPDS is often incorrectly scored by practitioners at a level that is of concern to clinicians of these services. Clinical teams should adopt the use of scoring templates and a double adding-up procedure when using measures such as the EPDS as a way that may reduce such scoring errors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
‘p’ is not reported as large sample sizes will result in even very small correlations being statistically significant.
This is not a community prevalence rate, as the sites include services providing clinical services to women referred with depressive symptomatology.
The rate of errors in the service providing training in the use of the scale is not specified, so as to maintain anonymity of each of the services.
References
Allard G, Butler J, Faust D, Shea MT (1995) Errors in hand scoring objective personality tests: the case of the personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-revised (PDQ-R). Prof Psychol Res Pract 26:304–308
Anastasi A (1968) Psychological testing, 3rd edn. Macmillan, New York
Ballestrem C-LV, Straub M, Kachele H (2005) Contribution to the epidemiology of postnatal depression in Germany—implications for the utilization of treatment. Arch Women Ment Health 8:29–35
Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK (1996) Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. Psychological Corporation, San Antonio
beyondblue (2011) Clinical Practice Guidelines for depression and related disorders – anxiety, bipolar disorder and puerperal psychosis—in the perinatal period. A guideline for primary care health professionals. Melbourne: beyondblue: The National Depression Initiative
Brealey SD, Hewitt C, Green JM, Morrell J, Gilbody S (2010) Screening for postnatal depression—is it acceptable to women and healthcare professionals? A systematic review and meta-synthesis. J Reprod Inf Psychol 28:328–344
Charter RA, Walden DK, Padilla SP (2000) Too many simple clerical scoring errors: the Rey Figure as an example. J Clin Psychol 56:571–574
Cox J, Holden J, Sagovsky R (1987) Detection of postnatal depression: development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry 150:782–786
Cox JL, Chapman G, Murray D, Jones P (1996) Validation of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in non-postnatal women. J Affect Disord 39:185–189
Glavin K, Smith L, Sorum R, Ellefsen B (2010) Redesigned community participation care to prevent and treat postpartum depression in women—a one-year follow-up study. J Clin Nurs 19:3051–3062
Hewitt CE, Gilbody SM, Mann R, Brealey S (2010) Instruments to identify post-natal depression: which methods have been the most extensively validated, in what setting and in which language? Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract 14:72–76
Kirkby HM, Wilson S, Calvert M, Draper H (2011) Using e-mail recruitment and an online questionnaire to establish effect size: a worked example. BMC Med Res Method 11:89
Leigh B, Milgrom J (2007) Acceptability of antenatal screening for depression in routine antenatal care. Aust J Adv Nurs 24:14–18
Matthey S, Henshaw C, Elliott S, Barnett B (2006) Variability in use of cut-off scores and formats on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale—implications for clinical and research practice. Arch Women Ment Health 9:309–315
Matthey S, White T, Rice S (2010) Women’s responses to postnatal self-report mood and experience measures: does anonymity make a difference? Arch Women Ment Health 13:477–484
Matthey S, Ross-Hamid C (2012) Repeat testing on the Edinburgh depression scale and the HADS-A in pregnancy: differentiating between transient and enduring distress. J Affect Disord 141:213–221
NSW Department of Health (2009) NSW health/families NSW supporting families early package—SAFE START Strategic Policy. NSW Department of Health, NSW Australia
Sherrets S, Gard G, Langner H (1979) Frequency of clerical errors in WISC protocols. Psychol Schools 16:495–496
Simons R, Goddard R, Patton W (2002) Hand-scoring error rates in psychological testing. Assessment 9:292–300
Warren SA, Brown WG (1973) Examiner scoring errors on individual intelligence tests. Psychol Schools 10:118–122
Wechsler D (2004) WPPSI-III: Australian administration and scoring manual. The Psychological Corporation, Australia
Wickberg B, Hwang CP (1996) The Edinburgh postnatal depression scale: validation on a Swedish community sample. Acta Psychiat Scandinav 94:181–184
Acknowledgments
We wish to thank the various clinicians and teams who were good enough to allow us to determine, and report, their level of scoring accuracy in this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Matthey, S., Lee, C., Črnčec, R. et al. Errors in scoring the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression scale. Arch Womens Ment Health 16, 117–122 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-012-0324-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00737-012-0324-9