Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T04:01:13.494Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Letter to the Editor: Incorrect citations of Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale cut-off scores and the use of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2011

STEPHEN MATTHEY
STEPHEN MATTHEY*
Affiliation:
South Western Sydney Local Health Network, NSW, Australia School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia School of Psychiatry, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
*
Address for correspondence: Adj. Associate Professor S. Matthey Liverpool Hospital, Mental Health Centre (L1), Locked Bag 7103, Liverpool BC, NSW 1871, Australia. (Email: stephen.matthey@sswahs.nsw.gov.au)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Type
Correspondence
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 41 , Issue 12 , December 2011 , pp. 2683
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

In a recent publication by Alcorn et al. (Reference Alcorn, O'Donovan, Patrick, Creedy and Devilly2010) in Psychological Medicine there are important errors that need to be corrected. These errors concern cited cut-off scores on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS; Cox et al. Reference Cox, Holden and Sagovsky1987), as well as stating that in a paper of mine (Matthey et al. Reference Matthey, Barnett, Howie and Kavanagh2003) we used the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Spielbereger et al. Reference Spielberger, Gorsuch and Lushene1970), which we did not.

Alcorn et al. (Reference Alcorn, O'Donovan, Patrick, Creedy and Devilly2010) state that in Matthey (Reference Matthey2004) I recommend postpartum scores on the EPDS of 9 or more (i.e. ⩾9) for possible depression and 12 or more (i.e. ⩾12) for probable depression. This is incorrect. In my paper I refer to scores of 10 or more (written as 9/10, which means 9 or less is ‘low’, 10 or more is ‘high’) and 13 or more (12/13). It is these scores, not the ones stated by Alcorn et al. (Reference Alcorn, O'Donovan, Patrick, Creedy and Devilly2010), which are validated for the postpartum period for English-speaking women.

This error by Alcorn et al. (Reference Alcorn, O'Donovan, Patrick, Creedy and Devilly2010) is further compounded when they state that Murray & Cox (Reference Murray and Cox1990) showed that the antenatal cut-off scores on the EPDS were 12 or more (i.e. ⩾12) for possible depression and 14 or more (i.e. ⩾14) for probable depression. This again is incorrect. They recommended scores of 13 or more (12/13) and 15 or more (14/15) for the antenatal period (thus the validated cut-off scores are higher in pregnancy than postpartum).

The various validated cut-off scores on this scale, as well as the impact of such errors and ways to prevent them, have been discussed by myself and colleagues (Matthey et al. Reference Matthey, Henshaw, Elliott and Barnett2006).

Declaration of Interest

None.

References

Alcorn, KL, O'Donovan, A, Patrick, JC, Creedy, D, Devilly, GJ (2010). A prospective longitudinal study of the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from childbirth events. Psychological Medicine 40, 1849–1859.Google Scholar
Cox, J, Holden, J, Sagovsky, R (1987). Detection of postnatal depression: development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. British Journal of Psychiatry 150, 782–786.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthey, S (2004). Calculating clinically significant change in postnatal depression studies using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Journal of Affective Disorders 78, 269–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Matthey, S, Barnett, BEW, Howie, P, Kavanagh, DJ (2003). Diagnosing postpartum depression in mothers and fathers: whatever happened to anxiety? Journal of Affective Disorders 74, 139–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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. Archives of Women's Mental Health 9, 309–315.Google Scholar
Murray, D, Cox, JL (1990). Screening for depression during pregnancy with the Edinburgh Depression Scale (EPDS). Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 8, 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spielberger, CD, Gorsuch, RL, Lushene, RE (1970). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (Self-Evaluation Questionnaire). Consulting Psychologists Press: Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar