RehabMeasures Instrument
  1. Rehabilitation Measures Database
  2. Geriatric Depression Scale

Geriatric Depression Scale

Last Updated

Purpose

The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) assesses depression and suicide ideations in elderly individuals.

Link to Instrument

Acronym GDS

Area of Assessment

Mental Functions
Activities & Participation

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

CDE Status

Last checked on 3/25/2026:

  • GDS-30 Exploratory for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
  • GDS-15 Supplemental-Highly recommended for Parkinson’s Disease. Recommended for studies requiring a measure of depression in the geriatric population.

 

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Brain Injury Recovery
  • Parkinson's Disease & Movement Disorders
  • Stroke Recovery

Populations

Mixed Conditions
Neurologic Conditions
Stroke
Cancer

Key Descriptions

  • Self-rating scale comprised of 30 items (15 items on GDS-15 short form published in 1986) selected from a pool of 100 items selected by researchers and clinicians.
  • Questions require simple YES/NO answers and are non-threatening and age-appropriate.
  • The patient?is asked to?provide responses to each question in reference to the past week.
  • One point is given for each “yes” response, and the number of points is summed to provide a single score.
  • Scores are categorized as (McDowell, 2006):
    1) Normal
    2) Mild
    3) Moderate-Severe
  • Scores above 11 indicate depression.
  • The GDS does not?measure?somatic symptoms.
  • Translations to other languages available at author's website:?http://www.stanford.edu/~yesavage/GDS.html

Number of Items

30
Short forms: 15, 10, and 4

Equipment Required

  • Questionnaire
  • Pen or pencil

Time to Administer

5-10 minutes

Required Training

No Training

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly Adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Jason Raad, MS and the Rehabilitation Measures Team in 2010; Updated with references of PD and stroke populations by Ya-Ju Wang, SPT and Jassica Webster, SPT in 2011; Updated with references of Dementia, Cognitive Impairment, PD, and Stroke populations by Joe Ascher, SPT and Tony Gravin, SPT in 11/2012. Updated in January 2026 by Natalie Backmann OTS, Emily Clearly OTS, Morgan Gygax OTS, Ashley Naze OTS, and Larissa Stanul OTS and reviewed by Jessica Schmidt OTD, MS-OTR/L, Concordia University Wisconsin.

ICF Domain

Body Function

Measurement Domain

Emotion

Professional Association Recommendation

None found--last checked 3/25/2026

Considerations

  • The authors of the GDS did not recommend a clear cut-off value for the 15- and the 30-item versions of the GDS (Wancata et al, 2006)
  • When comparing the 30 and 15 item versions of the GDS to a general practitioners' ability to diagnose late-life depressions, the GDS-30 had no added benefit, however, the GDS-15 helped identify an additional 4 cases per 100 primary care attendees and also helped rule-out an additional 4 non-cases per 100 (Mitchell et al, 2009)
  • GDS may not measure a single depression construct in PD population, so adjunctive measures should be considered (Lopez et al., 2018)
  • Multiple versions of the GDS exist, including the GDS-30 (original), GDS-15, GDS-4, and GDS-40

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Neurologic Conditions

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Alzheimer’s Disease and Progressive Dementia: (Lucas-Carrasco, 2012; n = 91; mean age (SD) = 79.2 (7.3); Spanish translation of GDS-15)

  • SEM (calculated) for entire group (n = 91): 1.526

 

Parkinson's Disease: (Lopez et al, 2018; n = 158; mean age (SD) = 67.6 (8.24) years; GDS-30)

  • SEM for the entire group (n = 158): 1.842

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Alzheimer’s Disease and Progressive Dementia: (Lucas-Carrasco, 2012)

  • MDC (calculated) for entire group (n = 91): 4.23

 

Parkinson's Disease: (Lopez et al, 2018)

  • MDC for entire group (n = 158): 5.11

Cut-Off Scores

Cognitive Impairment:

(Debruyne et al, 2009; n = 156, Cognitive Impairment)

  • For the GD, cut off scores was 8; sensitivity = 0.95, specificity = 0.67 

 

Dementia:

(Schreiner et al, 2003; n = 74; mean age = 59.9 years, Dementia)

  • For the GDS, cut off score was 6; sensitivity = 0.973, specificity = 0.959, FRP = 0.894, FNR = 0 

 

(Korner et al, 2006, n = 47, age > 65 years old) 

  • GDS-30 cut-off was 10 with a sensitivity = 0.83, specificity = 1.00
  • GDS-15 cut-off was 4 with a sensitivity = 0.81, specificity = 0.72
  • GDS-10 cut-off was 3 with a sensitivity = 0.72, specificity = 0.63
  • GDS-4 cut-off was 1 with a sensitivity = 0.72, specificity = 1.00

 

Parkinson's Disease:

(McDowell, 2006; n = 57; mean age = 58.6 (8.4) years; Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale score of 75 (18.4), Parkinson’s Disease)

  • Acceptable sensitivity and specificity with a cutoff of 9/10

 

(Tumas et al, 2008; n = 50; mean age without depression = 62.4 (12.6) years, mean age with depression = 64.5 (12.7) years; disease duration without depression = 54.5 (14.5) years, disease duration with depression = 56 (12.9) years, Parkinson’s Disease)

  • For the GDS-15, cut-off score 10/11; specificity = 0.97, PPV = 0.88

 

(Chagas et al, 2010; n = 78; mean age = 61.03 (10.52) years; disease duration 8.22 (4.98) years, Parkinson’s Disease)

  • For the GDS-15, cut-off score of 8; sensitivity = 0.778, specificity = 0.883, PPV = 0.667, NPV = 0.93

 

(Weintraub et al, 2006; n = 32; mean age = 72 years old, Parkinson’s Disease)

  • Cut-off score was 4/5; sensitivity of 0.88 and specificity of 0.85 

 

(Mondolo et al, 2006; n=46, mean age= 67.7 years old, Parkinson’s Disease)

  • GDS optimal cut-off score is 10/11; sensitivity= 1.00; specificity= 0.76; PPV= 0.33; NPV=1.00

 

Alzheimer’s Disease and Progressive Dementia: (Lucas-Carrasco, 2012)

  • < 6 score indicates no depression on the GDS-15
  • ≥ 6 score indicates depression on the GDS-15

Alzheimer’s Disease and Progressive Dementia: (Flavell, 2026; n = 82; GDS-Dementia (GDS-D))

  • ≥ 4 score indicates depression on the GDS-D

Normative Data

Parkinson’s Disease:

(Mondolo et al, 2006; n = 46, mean age = 67.7 years old, Parkinson’s Disease)

  • The mean for the population was 9.7 on the GDS, with a standard deviation of 5.4, and a range of 1-24

Internal Consistency

Parkinson’s Disease: (Ertan et al, 2005; n = 109; mean age = 66.5 (11) years, Parkinson’s Disease)

  • Excellent Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92*)

 

Parkinson's Disease: (Lopez et al., 2018; n= 158)

  • Excellent for total GDS-30: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.875 (Lopez et al., 2018)
  • Adequate to Excellent for GDS-30 factors (principal component analysis with varimax rotation revealed a 3-factor structure (29 items, note: item #25, “Often feel like crying”, did not load an any factor and was excluded):
  • Excellent for Apathy factor (10 items): Cronbach’s alpha = 0.804
  • Adequate for Anxiety factor (10 items): Cronbach’s alpha = 0.793
  • Adequate for Fatigue factor (9 items): Cronbach’s alpha = 0.706

 

Alzheimer’s Disease and Progressive Dementia: (Lucas-Carrasco, 2012; n = 91)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81

 

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Dementia:

(Korner et al, 2006, n = 47, age > 65 years old, Dementia) 

  • GDS-30 had a spearman’s correlation with the GDS-15 of 0.96
  • GDS-30 had a spearman’s correlation with the GDS-10 of 0.93
  • GDS-30 had a spearman’s correlation with the GDS-4 of 0.88
  • GDS-30 had a spearman’s correlation with the CSDD of 0.82
  • GDS-30 had a spearman’s correlation with the CGI of 0.79

Parkinson’s Disease:

(Mondolo et al, 2006; n = 46, mean age = 67.7 years old, Parkinson’s Disease)

  • GDS has a correlation with the HADS test of 0.72
  • GDS has a correlation with the HAN-D test of 0.59
  • GDS has a correlation with the FACE scale of 0.39
  • GDS has a correlation with the VAS Depression scale of -0.47
  • All the values were significant at the 0.01 alpha level

Construct Validity

Convergent validity:

Alzheimer’s Disease and Progressive Dementia: (Lucas-Carrosco, 2012) 

  • Poor correlation between the GDS-15 total score and the Barthel Index (r = -0.058)
  • Poor correlation between the GDS-15 total score and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (r = 0.073) 
  • Adequate correlation between the GDS-15 total score and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) (r = 0.450)

Parkinson's Disease: (Lopez et al., 2018)

  • Adequate correlation between the GDS total score and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale depression item (HAMDd) (r = 0.324)
  • Adequate correlation between the GDS total score and the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (item 3 for depressed mood) (MDS-UPDRSd) (r = 0.363)
  • Excellent correlation between the Anxiety factor of the GDS and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory-State Scale (STAI-S) (r = 0.609)
  • Poor correlations between the Anxiety factor of the GDS and depression items: HAMDd (r = 0.232) and MDS-UPDRSd (r = 0.270), as well as the Parkinson’s disease Sleep Scale (PDSS) (r = -0.263) and Subjective Cognitive Function (r = 0.199)
  • Adequate correlations between the Anxiety factor of the GDS and other neuropsychiatric measures: Apathy Scale (r = 0.320) and Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) (r = 0.374)

Correlations between GDS factor scores and neuropsychiatric functioning measures

Measure

Apathy

Anxiety

Fatigue

HAMDd

0.217*, P

0 232*, P

0.332**, A

MDS-UPDRSd

0.273*, P

0.270*, P

0.333**, A

Apathy Scale

0.476**, A

0.320**, A

0.585**, A

STAI-S

0.498**, A

0.609**, E

0.530**, A

MFIS

0.432**, A

0.374**, A

0.654**, E

PDSS

-0.182*, P

-0.263*, P

-0.371**, A

SCF

0.167*, P

0.199*, P

0.192*, P

HAMDd: Hamilton Depression Rating Scale depression item; MDS-UPDRSd: Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson’s disease Rating Scale depression item; STAI-S: State-trait Anxiety Inventory-State Scale; MFIS: Modified Fatigue Impact Scale; PDSS: Parkinson’s disease Sleep Scale; SCF: Subjective Cognitive Function.

*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01

“E”: Excellent; “A”: Adequate; “P”: Poor

Discriminate validity:

Parkinson’s Disease: (Ertan et al, 2005; n = 109; mean age = 66.5 (11) years, Parkinson’s Disease) 

  • The depressed group had a significantly higher mean GDS total score compared with those without depression (9.7 (7) vs. 7.6 (5), t = 9.5, p = 0.000, 95% CI (9.6 - 14.6))

Parkinson's Disease: (Lopez et al., 2018)

  • Excellent correlation between the GDS total score and measure of Subjective Cognitive Function (r = 0.228)
  • Adequate correlations between the GDS total score and the Apathy Scale (r = 0.565), Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS) (r = 0.596), and the Parkinson’s Disease Sleep Scale (PDSS) (r = -0.325)
  • Poor correlation between the GDS total score and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory-State Scale (STAI-S) (r = 0.660)

 

 

 

 

Content Validity

Content validity of GDS-D was determined by a panel of 4 clinicians with expertise in psychiatry. Each expert reviewed the items in the GDS-30 and identified items considered likely to be confounded by neurodegenerative disease processes including symptoms related to cognitive impairment, apathy, and somatic symptoms. From the results of this panel, Flavell et al. (2026) concluded that the instrument has strong content validity.

Stroke

back to Populations

Cut-Off Scores

Stroke: 

(Sivrioglu et al, 2009; n = 85; mean age = 60.1 (14) years; mean time since stroke = 237 (231) days, Chronic and Acute Stroke)

  • Non-depressed cut-scores of 10 to 11; sensitivity = 0.69, specificity = 0.75
  • Minor depression cut-scores of 11 to 12; sensitivity = 0.66, specificity = 0.79

 

(Tang et al, 2004; n = 127, Post-Stroke)

  • The optimal cut-off score is 6/7; sensitivity = 0.89; specificity = 0.73; PPV = 0.37; NPV = 0.98

Test/Retest Reliability

Stroke: (Sivrioglu et al, 2009, Chronic and Acute Stroke)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability (7 days between administrations; r = 0.75)

 

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Post-stroke: (Cinamon et al, 2010; n = 91; mean age = 72 (10.5) years; time post-stroke = 6 months)

  • Person-item Hierarchy:  Stroke specific GDS-17 is 0.79 and GDS-30 is 0.98

Internal Consistency

Stroke: (Sivrioglu et al, 2009, Chronic and Acute Stroke)

  • Excellent Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89)

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Stroke: (Agrell et al, 1989, n = 40, mean age = 80, Chronic and Acute Stroke)

  • Excellent concurrent validity between GDS and Zung Scale (r = 0.82) and between GDS and the HRS (Hamilton Rating Scale) (r = 0.82)

Construct Validity

Discriminate validity:

Stroke: (Sivrioglu et al, 2009, Chronic and Acute Stroke) 

  • Higher mean scores were obtained for depressed elderly stroke survivors (17.2 (4) vs. 12.8 (2), t(83) = 5.67, p = 0.000, 95% CI (2.8 - 5))

Mixed Conditions

back to Populations

Standard Error of Measurement (SEM)

Older Adults: (Snellman et al., 2024; n = 387; mean age (SD) = 91.0 (5.0) years; Swedish translation of GDS-15)

  • SEM (calculated) for entire group (n = 387): 1.559

 

Older Adults: (Sugishita et al., 2016; n = 128; mean age (SD) = 74.4 (8.3) years; age range = 55-92; Japanese translation of GDS-15)

  • SEM (calculated) for entire group (n = 128): 1.629

 

Older Adults w/Cognitive Impairment: (Henriques et al., 2023; n = 117; mean age (SD) = 83.66 (7.47) years; female = 76.9%; Portuguese translation of GDS into GDS-27 and GDS-15)

  • SEM (calculated) for entire group – GDS-27 (n = 117): 2.371
  • SEM (calculated) for entire group – GDS-15 (n = 117): 1.626

 

Minimal Detectable Change (MDC)

Older Adults: (Snellman et al., 2024)

  • MDC (calculated) for entire group (n = 387): 4.32

 

Older Adults: (Sugishita et al., 2016)

  • MDC (calculated) for entire group (n = 128): 4.51

 

Older Adults w/Cognitive Impairment: (Henriques et al., 2023)

  • MDC (calculated) for entire group – GDS-27 (n = 117): 6.57
  • MDC (calculated) for entire group – GDS-15 (n = 117): 4.51

 

Cut-Off Scores

Older Adults: (Snellman et al., 2024)

  • >5 indicates depression on GDS-15 (sensitivity 95.2%; specificity 65.8%)

 

Older Adults: (Dow et al., 2018; n = 87; mean age (SD) = 55 (14) years; GDS-S and GDS-M)

  • 0-4 indicates normal
  • 5-9 indicates mild depressive symptoms
  • ≥ 10 indicates moderate depressive symptoms

 

Older Adults: (Sugishita et al., 2016)

  • 6/7 indicates depression on GDS-15-J (sensitivity of 98.1%; specificity of 85.5%)

 

Older Adults w/Cognitive Impairment: (Henriques et al., 2023)

  • 15/16 indicates depression on GDS-27 (sensitivity 100%, specificity 63%)
  • 8/9 indicates depression on GDS-15 (sensitivity 90%; specificity 62%)

 

Older Adults: (Sacuiu et al., 2022; n = 60; median age = 80.0 (IQR = 9.0 (74.0-84.0))

  • 9 indicates depression on GDS-15

 

Mixed Conditions: (Guerin et al., 2018; n = 311; mean age (SD) = 50(16) years)

  • >5 indicates the presence of clinically significant symptoms of depression

 

Mixed Conditions: (Conradsson et al., 2012; n = 834; age ≥ 85; mean age (SD) = 90.2 (4.5) years; n = 651 (78.1%) completed GDS-15)

  • 0-4 indicates normal or no depression
  • 5-9 indicates mild depression
  • ≥ 10 indicates moderate to severe depression

Normative Data

Elderly with and without a history of depression: (Yesavage et al, 1982; n = 47; age > 55 years, Elderly with and without a history of depression)

  • Normal (no depression), scores of 0 to 10
  • Possible depression, scores of 11 or more

Test/Retest Reliability

Older Adults: (Snellman et al., 2024)

  • Excellent test-retest reliability: (ICC = 0.95)

 

Internal Consistency

Institutionalized elderly population: (Lesher, 1986, n = 51 nursing home residents, Institutionalized Elderly Population)

  • Excellent Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.99*)

Older Adults: (Snellman et al., 2024; n = 387)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73

 
Older Adults: (Sugishita et al., 2016; n = 128)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83

 

Older Adults:  (Zhang et al., 2019; n = 1546)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.774

 

Older Adults w/Cognitive Impairment: (Henriques et al., 2023; n = 117)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91*

 
Older Adults: (Dow et al., 2018; n = 87)

  • Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77

 

Mixed Conditions: (Conradsson et al., 2012, n = 651)

  • Poor to Excellent: Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.636 w/MMSE scores from 28-30 to 0.821 (MMSE scores from 5-9)

 

Older Adults: (Sacuiu et al., 2022)

  • Adequate: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86

 

*Scores higher than 0.9 may indicate redundancy in the scale questions.

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Concurrent validity:

Institutionalized Elderly Population: (Kiernan et al, 1986, Institutionalized Elderly Population)

  • Excellent convergent validity with the Beck Depression Inventory (r = 0.78)

 

Meta-analytic Results: (Wancata et al, 2006)

  • GDS validity was similar to the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D), but significantly better than the "Yale-1-question" scale
  • Excellent correlations between classification criteria “no depression,” “mild depression,” and “severe depression” and the GDS (r = 0.82), SDS (r = 0.69), and HAMD (r = 0.83)

Mixed Conditions: (Conradsson et al., 2012, n = 651)

  • Adequate to Excellent correlations between GDS-15 scores and those on the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale (PGCMS) for Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score groups of five or more (r = -0.585 to -0.726) (Conradsson et al. 2012)

 

Older Adults: (Dow et al., 2018; n = 87)

  • Excellent concurrent validity of GDS-15 for predicting depression in older Chinese individuals when coming to other validated test (gamma = 0.90)

 

Older Adults: (Snellman et al., 2024; n = 387)

  • Excellent correlation between the total GDS score and the total score on the Montgomery Asberg Depression Scale (MADRS) scores (r = 0.6)
  • Adequate correlations between GDS items and MADRS total score for GDS items 3, 5, 7-8, and 11-14 (r = 0.316–0.399)
  • Poor correlations between GDS items and MADRS total score for GDS items 1-2, 3, 6, 9-10, and 15 (r = 0.056–0.274)
  • Excellent score of major depression under ROC curve (ROC = 0.90)

 

Mixed Conditions: (Guerin et al., 2018; n = 311)

  • Excellent concurrent validity of predicting depression in young adults (<55) (AUC=0.92)
  • Excellent concurrent validity of predicting depression in older adults (>55) (AUC=0.94)

Predictive Validity:

Older Adults: (Sugishita et al., 2016; n = 128)

  • Excellent predictive validity of GDS-15-J scores: ROC area under the curve indicates that it is useful in screening for depression (AUC = 0.960)

 

 

Construct Validity

Convergent Validity:

Older Adults w/Cognitive Impairment: (Henriques et al., 2023)

  • Excellent correlation between GDS-27 (rho = 0.738) and GDS-15 (rho = 0.760) scores with the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) total score

 

Construct Validity:

Older Adults: (Sugishita et al., 2016; n = 128)

  • Adequate to Excellent  correlations among three factors that accounted for 34.7% of the variance in GDS-15-J scores:
    • Excellent correlation between pessimistic mood and negative self-evaluation (r = 0.665)
    • Excellent correlation between pessimistic mood and loss of energy (r = 0.619)
    • Adequate correlation between negative self-evaluation and loss of energy (r = 0.587)

 

Content Validity

Older Adults: (Brink et al, 1982; Yesavage et al, 1983)

  • 100 items were selected by researchers and clinicians familiar with depression in geriatric populations. 
  • 30 items were then empirically selected based on their correlation with the initial 100 item measures total scores.

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Older Adults: (Snellman et al., 2024; n = 387)

  • Adequate ceiling effect of <20% on GDS-15

Responsiveness

Meta-analytic Results: (Wancata et al, 2006; n = 42 studies; mixed sample)

  • GDS-30: sensitivity 0.753, specificity 0.770
  • GDS-15: sensitivity 0.805, specificity 0.750

 

Meta-analytic Results: (Mitchell et al, 2009; n = 17 studies reported)

  • GDS-30 (after meta-analytic weighting) sensitivity = 77.4% (95% CI = 66.3% to 86.8%) and a specificity = 65.4% (95% CI = 44.2% to 83.8%).
  • GDS-15 (after meta-analytic weighting) sensitivity = 81.3% (95% CI = 77.2% to 85.2%) and specificity=78.4% (95% CI = 71.2% to 84.8%)

Cancer

back to Populations

Cut-Off Scores

Cancer: (Lafont et al., 2021; n = 2293; age ≥ 70; median age = 81.2 (4) years; female = 46%; French cohort and translation of GDS-4)

  • ≥1 indicates depression based on GDS-4

Criterion Validity (Predictive/Concurrent)

Predictive validity: 

Stroke: (Lafont et al., 2021)

  • Excellent predictive validity of the GDS-4 at predicting depression in cancer patients when compared to clinical diagnosis, DSM- IV criteria, and laten class analysis (AUROC = 91.9% (95% CI: 90.6%-93.2%), sensitivity = 90% (95% CI: 87.5%-92.2%), specificity = 89% (95% CI: 87.4%-90.5%

Bibliography

Agrell, B. and Dehlin, O. (1989). "Comparison of six depression rating scales in geriatric stroke patients." Stroke 20(9): 1190-1194. 

Brink, T., Yesavage, J., et al. (1982). "Screening tests for geriatric depression." Clinical Gerontologist 1(1): 37-43. 

Chagas, M. H., Tumas, V., et al. (2010). "Validity of a Brazilian version of the Zung self-rating depression scale for screening of depression in patients with Parkinson's disease." Parkinsonism Relat Disord 16(1): 42-45. 

Cheng, S. T., Yu, E. C., et al. (2010). "The geriatric depression scale as a screening tool for depression and suicide ideation: a replication and extention." Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 18(3): 256-265. 

Cinamon, J. S., Finch, L., et al. (2011). "Preliminary evidence for the development of a stroke specific geriatric depression scale." Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 26(2): 188-198. 

Conradsson, M., Rosendahl, E., Littbrand, H., Gustafson, Y., Olofsson, B., & L?vheim, H. (2013). Usefulness of the Geriatric Depression Scale 15-item version among very old people with and without cognitive impairment. Aging & Mental Health, 17(5), 638–645. 

Debruyne, H., Van Buggenhout, M., et al. (2009). "Is the geriatric depression scale a reliable screening tool for depressive symptoms in elderly patients with cognitive impairment?" Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 24(6): 556-562. 

Dow, B., Lin, X., Pachana, N. A., Bryant, C., LoGiudice, D., Goh, A. M. Y., & Haralambous, B. (2018). Reliability, concurrent validity, and cultural adaptation of the Geriatric Depression Scale and the Geriatric Anxiety Inventory for detecting depression and anxiety symptoms among older Chinese immigrants: An Australian study. International Psychogeriatrics, 30(5), 735–748.  

Ertan, F. S., Ertan, T., et al. (2005). "Reliability and validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale in depression in Parkinson's disease." J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 76(10): 1445-1447. 

Flavell, J., Roberts, K., Morris, P. L. P., Mosley, P. E., Ahern, E. G. M., Logan, B., Adam, R. J., McElligott, C. A. T., Shaw, T. B., & Nestor, P. J. (2026). A preliminary investigation of a Geriatric Depression Scale, Dementia version (GDS-D). Journal of Affective Disorders, 399, Article 121056.

Guerin, J. M., Copersino, M. L., & Schretlen, D. J. (2018). Clinical utility of the 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) for use with young and middle-aged adults. Journal of Affective Disorders, 241, 59–62. 

Henriques, S., Pérez‐Sáez, E., Carvalho, J. O., Bobrowicz-Campos, E., Apóstolo, J., Otero, P., & Vázquez, F. (2023). Reliability and validity of the geriatric depression scale in a sample of Portuguese older adults with mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment. Brain Sciences, 13(8), 1160.

Kiernan, B., Wilson, D., et al. (1986). "Comparison of the Geriatric Depression Scale and Beck Depression Inventory in a nursing home setting." Clinical Gerontologist 6(1): 54-56. 

Korner, A., Lauritzen, L., et al. (2006). "The Geriatric Depression Scale and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia. A validity study." Nord J Psychiatry 60(5): 360-364. 

Lafont, C., Chah Wakilian, A., Lemogne, C., Gouraud, C., Fossey‐Diaz, V., Orvoen, G., Lhuillier, N., Paillaud, E., Bastuji‐Garin, S., Zebachi, S., Hanon, O., Goldwasser, F., Boudou‐Rouquette, P., & Canou?‐Poitrine, F. (2021). Diagnostic performance of the 4‐item Geriatric Depression Scale for depression screening in older patients with cancer: The ELCAPA cohort study. The Oncologist, 26(6), e983–e991. 

Lesher, E. (1986). "Validation of the Geriatric Depression Scale among nursing home residents." Clinical Gerontologist 4(4): 21-28.

Lopez, F. V., Split, M., Filoteo, J. V., Litvan, I., Moore, R. C., Pirogovsky-Turk, E., Liu, L., Lessig, S., & Schiehser, D. M. (2018). Does the Geriatric Depression Scale measure depression in Parkinson’s disease? International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 33(12), 1662–1670.  

Lucas-Carrasco, R. (2012). Spanish version of the Geriatric Depression Scale: Reliability and validity in persons with mild–moderate dementia. International Psychogeriatrics, 24(8), 1284–1290.  

McDowell, I. (2006). Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires, Oxford University Press, USA. Mitchell, A. J., Bird, V., et al. (2009). "Diagnostic validity and added value of the geriatric depression scale for depression in primary care: A meta-analysis of GDS(30) and GDS(15)." J Affect Disord.  

Mondolo, F., Jahanshahi, M., et al. (2006). "The validity of the hospital anxiety and depression scale and the geriatric depression scale in Parkinson's disease." Behav Neurol 17(2): 109-115. 

Sacuiu, S., Seidu, N. M., Sigstr?m, R., Sterner, T. R., Johansson, L., Wiktorsson, S., & Waern, M. (2022). Accuracy of 12 short versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale to detect depression in a prospective study of a high-risk population with different levels of cognition. International Psychogeriatrics, 34(5), 479–488.  

Schreiner, A. S., Hayakawa, H., et al. (2003). "Screening for late life depression: cut-off scores for the Geriatric Depression Scale and the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia among Japanese subjects." Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 18(6): 498-505. 

Sivrioglu, E. Y., Sivrioglu, K., et al. (2009). "Reliability and validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale in detection of poststroke minor depression." J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 31(8): 999-1006. 

Snellman, S., H?rnsten, C., Olofsson, B., Gustafson, Y., L?vheim, H., & Niklasson, J. (2024). Validity and test–retest reliability of the Swedish version of the Geriatric Depression Scale among very old adults. BMC Geriatrics, 24(1), 261. 

Sugishita, K., Sugishita, M., Hemmi, I., Asada, T., & Tanigawa, T. (2017). A validity and reliability study of the Japanese version of the Geriatric Depression Scale 15 (GDS-15-J). Clinical Gerontologist, 40(4), 233–240. 

Tang, W. K., Chan, S. S., et al. (2004). "Can the Geriatric Depression Scale detect poststroke depression in Chinese elderly?" J Affect Disord 81(2): 153-156. 

Tumas, V., Rodrigues, G. G., et al. (2008). "The accuracy of diagnosis of major depression in patients with Parkinson's disease: a comparative study among the UPDRS, the geriatric depression scale and the Beck depression inventory." Arq Neuropsiquiatr 66(2A): 152-156. 

Wancata, J., Alexandrowicz, R., et al. (2006). "The criterion validity of the Geriatric Depression Scale: a systematic review." Acta Psychiatr Scand 114(6): 398-410. 

Weintraub, D., Oehlberg, K. A., et al. (2006). "Test characteristics of the 15-item geriatric depression scale and Hamilton depression rating scale in Parkinson disease." Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 14(2): 169-175. 

Yesavage, J., Brink, T., et al. (1983). "Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report." Journal of psychiatric research 17(1): 37-49. 

Yesavage, J. A., Brink, T. L., et al. (1982). "Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report." J Psychiatr Res 17(1): 37-49. 

Zhang, H., Wang, S., Wang, L., Yi, X., Jia, X., & Jia, C. (2020). Comparison of the Geriatric Depression Scale‐15 and the Patient Health Questionnaire‐9 for screening depression in older adults. Geriatrics & Gerontology International, 20(2), 138–143.

 

rehabilitation measures

More Instruments Like This

We have reviewed more than 500 instruments for use with a number of diagnoses including stroke, spinal cord injury and traumatic brain injury among several others.

updated Feb 10, 2026

Section GG: Functional Abi...

read more

updated Sep 30, 2025

Function in Sitting Test

read more

updated Sep 30, 2025

Barthel Index

read more