Comparisons and contrasts between the two articles
The two articles are characterized by many similarities. Both articles have focused on the study of issues with regard to depression. Authors of the articles assert that a healthy society should not have many people who are negatively impacted by stress. To achieve the goal of making proper estimations on the effects of depression in the society, the authors assert that it is critical to making accurate measurements. Therefore, the publications are based on a popular tool that is utilized to assess the level of depression in the society.
The tool is known as CESD. In addition, the articles report data that were collected from studies involving sampling techniques to identify the study participants. Sampling was used to select participants so that the validity of the study results could be higher.
In addition, the studies concentrated on deciphering how the methods utilized could be applied in clinical settings to cater for patients who present with depression. The importance of correcting depression in the society cannot be understated. A depression-free population could be involved in many aspects of improving lives through working in different sectors of the economy.
However, some important contrasts can also be noted in the two articles. Van Dam and Earleywine (2011) aimed at establishing the effectiveness of two methods of measuring depression in the population. The methods were CESD and CESD-R. Particularly, the researchers focused on determining whether or not the revised version of CESD was better than the earlier version. The study used a large study population (N=7389) and a smaller sample size of 245 study participants.
The study confirmed that CESD-R showed better psychometric properties than CESD method of measuring depression. In addition, the new version of assessing depression could be used to learn about other aspects of depression such as anxiety and schizotypy. The study also concluded that CESD-R was a better tool to assess depression levels because it could be easily distributed to target different segments of the population (Van Dam & Earleywine, 2011).
On the other hand, Herrero and Meneses (2006) aimed at comparing the effectiveness of web-based and paper-based measures of depression among 530 university students. The study authors utilized the PSS and CESD scales of depression. The study did not establish any difference in the two methods of measuring psychological distress (Herrero & Meneses, 2006).
Difference between the populations
There are distinct aspects with regard to populations that have valid and invalid psychological measures. The validity in the context of measuring psychological attributes is the extent to which methods of measurements produce the desired outcomes. Validity is found in populations that are relatively large while invalid psychometric results are yielded in relatively small populations.
A population that supports valid psychometric measures is not affected by confounding factors that negatively impact the psychological characteristic being measured. On the other hand, population that is characterized by invalid measures is greatly affected by other factors. Lastly, a population that yields valid psychometric measures has study participants who are available for tests while a population that produces invalid results has some study participants who do not take part in all study measurements (Herrero & Meneses, 2006).
Conclusion
Depression is a common issue in the society, which negatively impacts many people. There are no differences in the validity of psychometric results obtained through web-based and paper-based measurements. However, CESD-R is a better method than CESD for the measurement of depression. Measurements that aim at yielding valid results should be conducted in populations that support valid assessments.
References
Herrero, J., & Meneses, J. (2006). Short web-based versions of the perceived stress (PSS) and Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CESD) Scales: A comparison to pencil and paper responses among internet users. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(5), 830-846.
Van Dam, N. T., & Earleywine, M. (2011). Validation of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale—Revised (CESD-R): Pragmatic depression assessment in the general population. Psychiatry research, 186(1), 128-132.