Revisiting the dimensional structure of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS): empirical evidence for a general factor
 Michael E Reichenheim^{1}Email author,
 Claudia L Moraes^{1, 2},
 Alessandra SD Oliveira^{3} and
 Gustavo Lobato^{4}
DOI: 10.1186/147122881193
© Reichenheim et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011
Received: 21 December 2010
Accepted: 20 June 2011
Published: 20 June 2011
Abstract
Background
The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) has been proposed as a onedimensional instrument and used as a single 10item scale. This might be considered questionable since repeated psychometric studies have shown multidimensionality, which would entail using separate component subscales. This study reappraised the dimensional structure of the EPDS, with a focus on the extent of factor correlations and related factorbased discriminant validity as a foundation for deciding how to effectively scale the component items.
Methods
The sample comprised 811 randomly selected mothers of children up to 5 months attending primary health services of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Strict Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Exploratory Factor Analysis modeled within a CFA framework (E/CFA) were sequentially used to identify best fitting and parsimonious model(s), including a bifactor analysis to evaluate the existence of a general factor. Properties concerning the related 10item rawscore scale were also investigated using nonparametric items response theory methods (scalability and monotonicity).
Results
An initial CFA rejected the onedimensional structure, while an E/CFA subscribed a threedimensional solution. Yet, factors were highly correlated (0.66, 0.75 and 0.82). The ensuing CFA showed poor discriminant validity (some squareroots of average variance extracted below the factor correlations). A general bifactor CFA was then fit. Results suggested that, although still weakly encompassing three specific factors, the EPDS might be better described by a model encompassing a general factor (loadings ranging from 0.51 to 0.81). The related 10item raw score showed adequate scalability (Loevinger's H coefficient = 0.4208), monotonicity e partial double monotonicity (nonintersections of Item Step Response Functions).
Conclusion
Although the EPDS indicated the presence of specific factors, they do not qualify as independent dimensions if used separately and should therefore not be used empirically as subscales (raw scores). An allencompassing scale seems better suited and continuing its use in clinical practice and applied research should be encouraged.
Background
Postpartum depression (PPD) is a difficult construct to measure in practice [1]. Enabling as many health professionals as possible to make a timely first assessment of maternal mental health while leaving detailed psychiatric assessments for only those situations suggestive of PPD is an appealing approach. Similarly, applied research contexts require swift yet valid instruments. In the late 1980s Cox et al. [2] argued that a suitable instrument to evaluate depressive symptoms after childbirth was needed since available tools to assess depression in general populations put too much emphasis on somatic symptoms that could nevertheless be due to normal physiologic adaptations associated to childbearing. In an attempt to address this drawback, the authors proposed the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS), a simple and well accepted 10item assessment tool that is easy to fill in and does not require specialized psychiatric expertise from health workers. Since its conception, the EPDS has been adapted for use in several countries [3, 4] and has become the most widely used instrument for a first approach to PPD [4, 5].
The EPDS has been extensively scrutinized and a number of studies have evaluated its psychometric properties. Several studies have focused on its dimensional structure, with at least thirteen comprising sample sizes above 150 individuals [6–18]. Although Cox et al. [2] originally proposed the EPDS as a onedimensional measurement tool and this has been supported by a few authors [12, 13], most of the factorial analyses have shown that the EPDS would be better defined through multifactorial structures, either by two [6, 10, 16–18] or three factors [7–9, 11, 14, 15].
Regardless of the number of uncovered factors, most studies clearly distinguished items representing 'anxiety'  items 3 (blaming oneself unnecessarily when things [go] wrong), 4 (having been anxious or worried for no good reason) and 5 (having felt scared or panicky for no very good reason)  from those representing low positive affect or anhedonia  1 ([not being] able to laugh and see the funny side of things) and 2 ([not] looking forward with enjoyment to things)  and depression  9 (feeling unhappy [and] crying) and 10 ([thinking] of harming oneself). In three studies, the items on anhedonia and depression jointly loaded on a single factor forming a twofactorial structure along with an anxiety factor [16–18]. Another study showed several crossloadings involving items 8 (feeling sad or miserable), 9 and 10 [10]. A fifth study suggesting a twofactor structure was less conclusive since a few items had been removed before the factorial analysis [19].
A distinction between the anxiety items and the others persisted in all studies showing a threefactorial solution, but with items mapping anhedonia and depression now clearly separated. In some studies, item 8 joined items 1 and 2 on anhedonia [8, 9, 11, 14, 15], whereas in others this item joined items 9 and 10 on depression [7, 13]. Items 6 (feeling that things have been getting on top of [the respondent]) and 7 (having been so unhappy that [respondent] had difficulty sleeping) showed to be the most illbehaved irrespectively of the type of solution. They often cross loaded, in some studies joining the anhedonia/depression items and in others grouping with the anxiety items.
Despite some oddities  which may have come about from methodological shortcomings such as inadequate sample sizes, unsuitable multivariate models (e.g., principal components analysis) and/or failing to correctly model the orderedcategorical nature of the items , the reviewed literature shows more congruence than otherwise and, without further detailing, would be suggestive of a multiscale measurement tool. However, considering this alleged dimensional profile in the light of the usual way the instrument has been thus far discussed methodologically and hence used in practice [3, 4], a fundamental but yet unanswered question follows. If the EPDS is really multidimensional, so far as to suggest an independent anxiety subscale [6, 18], is it appropriate to use the complete 10item score and thereafter specify a cutoff point to define PPD as commonly done? From a psychometric stance, in principle, the answer should be 'no' since distinct although not necessarily uncorrelated dimensions of a given construct require separate empirical scales. Therefore, relying on the evidence from the literature, a call for a two or threetiered measurement tool would be reasonable.
A connected question concerns the use of raw scores as proxies for latent traits in applied research. Beyond assessing whether these raw scores are effectively matching the purportedly related latent factors scores, asking which factors are actually involved is also necessary. Specifically in regards to the EPDS, should raw scores relate to specific (e.g., anhedonia, anxiety and depression) factors or would a sum of all ten item scores be an adequate representation of an overall dimension covering PPD? It should not go unnoticed that separately using sums of factorspecific items may incur in missing out the full mapping [20] of an overall dimension (in tandem or instead of several specific dimensions), should it exist. Conversely, adding up item scores when items comprise a multidimensional structure would be unwarranted. Different dimensions may also have exclusive antecedents and consequents, which would not be distinguishable if all items were lumped together.
Thus, before accepting a multiscale usage of an instrument, an important aspect that needs scrutinizing concerns whether there is sufficient discriminatory power across the factors and whether these factors are thus appropriate descriptors of truly independent theoretical dimensions [21]. To the best of the authors' knowledge this scrutiny has never been performed in regards to the EPDS. One purpose of this study was thus to reappraise its dimensional structure with a special focus on the assessment of factor correlations and the related factorbased discriminant validity properties. This evaluation first required a reassessment of the number of constituent factors in order to examine whether the onedimensional solution originally specified would be again refuted in the present data. Analysis would only proceed if a multidimensional structure were supported. Given the hypothesis that the identified factors failed to hold discriminant validity, the identification of a general factor would be further explored through a bifactor analysis [22]. An ensuing objective would then be to scrutinize the properties of raw scores as proper representations of modelbased (latent) factor scores.
Method
Sample and procedures
Participants were randomly selected mothers of children under 5 months of age waiting to be consulted in five large public primary health care facilities of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Data collection took place from January to July 2007. Given a shared research purpose was to study the role of intimate partner violence in the early weaning and/or PPD, women were considered ineligible when experiencing less than 1 month of intimate relationship with partner during pregnancy or the postpartum period. Other exclusion criteria were situations in which there was an absolute contraindication for breastfeeding. Women that gave birth to twins were also excluded, to avoid a very particular and rare subgroup that could not be adequately addressed in the analysis. Out of the 853 women invited to take part in the study, 18 (2.1%) were not eligible and from the remaining 835, 24 (2.9%) refused to participate. Thus, 811 women were effectively interviewed in a reserved area without the presence anyone, but the interviewer, once anonymity and confidentiality of the information collected had been warranted. A Brazilian Portuguese version of the EPDS [23] was completed along with other instruments comprising a comprehensive multidimensional questionnaire.
Data analysis
Anticipating a possible model misfit and/or foreseeing plausible alternative dimensional structures, the next step consisted in reexploring the dimensional structure of the EPDS through an Exploratory Structural Equation Model procedure as proposed by Marsh et al. [33]. This consisted of fitting a sequence of exploratory models (2 to 4 factors) within a CFA framework (E/CFA). Figure 1B represents a 3factor E/CFA model. The procedure has the advantage over the 'traditional' Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) model [34] for it allows relaxing and effectively implementing several restrictions imposed by an EFA. Freely estimating certain parameters enables testing interesting properties that are otherwise only accomplished with a CFA yet keeping the main gist of an EFA. Notably, all loadings are freely estimated and rotation is possible. The current analysis used the geomin oblique rotation [24, 30]. Additionally, item residual (error) correlations were also evaluated since conditional dependencies may indicate possible item redundancies [21]. To this end Modification Indices (MI) were used. A MI reflects how much the overall model chisquare decreases if a constrained parameter is freely estimated. Here, possible correlations between item measurement errors involving MI values equal or above 10 would be further examined, as well as the magnitude of the corresponding expected parameter changes (EPC) for freely estimated parameters [21]. The same GOF indices presented before were used here too. Theoretical meaningfulness was also considered to assess the pattern and number of factors.
The next step was to apply a strict CFAtype model to the 'best' E/CFA identified (Figure 1C). Besides reassessing factor loadings and error correlations in a congeneric perspective (i.e., items loading exclusively on purported factors), the sequence also involved assessing factorbased convergent and discriminant validity [21, 31]. Both are based on the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) [31]. The AVE assesses the amount of variance captured by a common factor in relation to the amount of variance due to random measurement error [35]. It is a function of the relationship between the standardized item factor loadings and the related measurement error (uniqueness) that refers to the portion of an indicator not explained by the latent factor [36]. Values vary from 0 to 1. A factor shows convergent validity if AVE ≥ 0.50, which is indicative that at least 50% of the variance in a measure is due to the hypothesized underlying trait. Factorbased convergent validity is questionable if AVE < 0.50 since the variance due to measurement error is then greater than the variance due to the construct [35].
In multidimensional models, factorbased discriminant validity is said to hold if, for any given factor, the square root of its AVE is above the correlations with any other related factors in the model [37], and preferably without any confidence interval overlap. The 95% CI for AVE and squareroot of AVE were obtained via bootstrap method with 1000 replications [38, 39]. For reassurance, further interim reassessment of cross loadings and residual correlations were carried out using MI (EPC). The same criteria were applied. Similarly, the fit assessment used the RMSEA, CFI and TLI indices.
Having ascertained proper itemfactor specification (absence of relevant crossloadings), absence of residual correlations, and having identified poor discriminant validity, we engaged in further exploring whether or not the EPDS, as other instruments tapping mood and anxiety disorders and general distress [40–44], would be able to identify a nonspecific general (g) factor along with specific ones representing anhedonia, anxiety and depression. To this end, a bifactor modelling procedure was employed [22, 45]. The model's diagram is shown in Figure 1D. For identification, all factors were specified as orthogonal [45]. Significance testing (for factors) used the correction procedure proposed by Satorra & Bentler [46], since the difference in chisquare values for two nested models is not chisquare distributed when the WLSMV estimator is used.
Several other properties were inspected in tandem. In order to weigh their relative importance, the percentages of variance explained by items, factors (specific and general) and due to errors (uniqueness) were calculated. We also investigated the obtained modelbased thresholds [47]. These are equivalent to item response theory (IRT) thetametric b _{ i } parameters [47] and indicate how items actually map the dimension (latent trait) in terms of increasing intensity or severity. In particular, we looked at how the specific item components varied regarding the gfactor.
We then sought to investigate the role of raw scores as a useful measure to rank respondents along the overall latent trait [48]. Correlations between the generated specific and general factor scores, and the respective total raw scores were first assessed, with a particular eye on the correlation between the gfactor score and the (purportedly equivalent) sumoftenitems raw score. Factor scores were estimated using maximum a posteriori method as implemented in Mplus [49].
To complete the process we turned to nonparametric itemresponse theory (NIRT) methods to look into the properties of the total raw score (X _{+}, the sum of all 10 EPDS items scores), namely, scalability and monotonicity. Scalability relates to the ability of items and, by extension, the overall X _{+} scale to meaningfully order and position subjects along a continuum as their latent trait effectively increases. Scalability was gauged through Loevinger's H coefficient [48] using a special Stata routine [50, 51]. As suggested by Mokken, values > 0.3 indicate acceptable levels [48].
Under the Monotone Homogeneity Model, the monotonicity assumption holds when the probability of an item response greater than or equal to any fixed value is a nondecreasing function of the latent trait θ [51]. For scales involving polytomous items as the EPDS, by definition, the m = 3 item step response functions (ISRF) of any given item containing m+1 = 4 levels may not intersect if the monotonicity assumption is sustained [48]. Furthermore, when the double monotonicity assumption holds, besides 'within item' monotonicity (and ensuing nonintersections of the m ISRFs), nonintersections also occurs across ISRFs of different items [48]. Under double monotonicity one may be fairly confident that items will be answered and interpreted similarly by all the respondents, whatever their level of the latent trait. Monotonicity (single and double) was evaluated through the criteria proposed by Molenaar, Sijtsma, and Boer [52]. Accordingly, a criterion less than 40 suggests that the reported violations (ISRF intersection) can be ascribed to sampling variation. If the criterion is between 40 and 80, more detailed evaluations are required. A criterion beyond 80 raises doubts about the monotonicity assumption of an item and in turns, about the scale as a whole. Single monotonicity was also inspected graphically by means of the item traces as a function of the restscore. For completeness, the number of violations of monotonicity concerning withinitem ISRF intersections, and double monotonicity concerning interitem ISRF nonintersection was also evaluated. A full account of the methods employed here and details on NIRT may be found in Molenaar, Sijtsma & Boer [52], Sijtsma & Molenaar [48], and Hardouin, BonnaudAntignac & Sebille [51].
Ethics Approval
The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Rio de Janeiro Municipal Health Department in conformity with the principles embodied in the declaration of Helsinki. A written informed consent was given by study participants after having the informed consent form read to them.
Results
Mean maternal age was 25.3 years (range 1344 years, 95% CI: 24.9; 25.8) and 22.7% (95% CI: 19.8; 25.6) of women were adolescents (< 20 years). Most of the participants had steady partners (86.6%, 95% CI: 84.2; 88.9) and up to 12 years of schooling (71.9%, 95% CI: 68.8; 75.0). Almost half (49.6%, 95% CI: 46.1; 53.0) were first time mothers and the mean age of the most recent infant was 59 days (range 3150, 95% CI: 56.2; 61.9). The mean EPDS score was 7.8 (95% CI: 7.4; 8.2) and 24.3% (95% CI: 21.3; 27.2) women scored at or above the cutoff point of 12, which has been suggested in another study as appropriate for the Brazilian setting [23].
Sequence of models concerning the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS): A) Onedimensional Confirmatory Factor Analysis; B) Exploratory/Confirmatory Factor Analysis (E/CFA); C) Threefactor Confirmatory Factor Analysis; D) Bifactor model: three specific factors plus a general (g) factor.
Model A 1factor CFA  Model B 3factor  E/CFA  Model C 3factor CFA  Model D Bifactor model  

Factor 1  Factor 1  Factor 2  Factor 3  Factor 1  Factor 2  Factor 3  Factor 1  Factor 2  Factor 3  gfactor  
λ _{ i (1) } ^{a}  δ _{ i } ^{b}  λ _{ i (1)}  λ _{ i (2)}  λ _{ i (3)}  δ _{ i }  λ _{ i (1)}  λ _{ i (2)}  λ _{ i (3)}  δ _{ i }  λ _{ i (1)}  λ _{ i (2)}  λ _{ i (3)}  λ _{ i ( G ) }  δ _{ i }  
i1  .74 (.70; .79)  .45  .81 (.47; 1.0)  .05 (.23; .37)  .02 (.19; .16)  0.30  .82 (.77; .86)  .33  .48 (.25; .72)  .68 (.62; .74)  .30  
i2  .71 (.66; .76)  .49  .83 (.66; 1.0)  .03 (.15; .1)  .01 (.18; .21)  0.33  .78 (.73; .83)  .39  .50 (.26; .74)  .65 (.59; .71)  .33  
i6  .59 (.54; .65)  .64  .31 (.15; .48)  .28 (.04; .52)  .08 (.16; .31)  .63  .65 (.59; .70)  .58  .14 (.04; .24)  .52 (.45; .59)  .63  
i3  .53 (.47; .59)  .72  .00 (.04; .04)  .68 (.39; .97)  .07 (.37; .23)  .61  .60 (.53; .67)  .64  .25 (.10; .40)  .51 (.45; .58)  .67  
i4  .53 (.48; .59)  .715  .07 (.29; .15)  .67 (.40; .94)  .01 (.18; .20)  .61  .61 (.55; .67)  .63  .46 (.19; .72)  .63 (.56; .70)  .53  
i5  .64 (.58; .70)  .59  .11 (.10; .33)  .61 (.40; .83)  .01 (.14; .15)  .52  .74 (.68; .80)  .46  .31 (.13; .48)  .59 (.53; .65)  .50  
i7  .82 (.77; .86)  .33  .01 (.08; .10)  .145 (.08; .37)  .70 (.51; .89)  .31  .84 (.80; .88)  .30  .17 (.02; .35)  .81 (.75; .88)  .31  
i8  .80 (.77; .84)  .35  .05 (.09; .18)  .01 (.04; .06)  .78 (.66; .90)  .32  .83 (.79; .87)  .31  .24 (.03; .46)  .78 (.72; .84)  .33  
i9  .81 (.78; .85)  .34  .01 (.07; .05)  .15 (.46; .15)  .99 (.74; 1.00)  .24  .84 (.80; .88)  .30  .45 (.22; .68)  .77 (.71; .83)  .20  
i10  .68 (.60; .76)  .54  .03 (.18; .24)  .06 (.27; .40)  .62 (.31; .93)  .52  .70 (.62; .78)  .51  .17 (.06; .40)  .67 (.57; .77)  .52  
f1 ⇔ f2 ^{c}      .66 (.47; .86)  .74 (.67; .81)  0  
f1 ⇔ f3      .75 (.63; .87)  .80 (.76; .85)  0  
f2 ⇔ f3      .82 (.69; .94)  .81 (.74; .87)  0  
RMSEA ^{d}  .081 (.071; .091)  .037 (.019; .053)  .037 (.024; .049)  .026 (.005; .041)  
CFI ^{e}  .963  .996  .993  .997  
TLI ^{f}  .953  .991  .990  .995 
Four increasingly complex two to fourfactor E/CFA models were sequentially fitted. The 2factor E/CFA model showed a RMSEA of 0.057 (90% CI: 0.045; 0.069). A formal comparison of the 3factor E/CFA model with this simpler model yielded a χ ^{2} value for difference testing of 49.223, which is highly significant (p ≪ 0.001 at 8 d.f.) and shows a fit improvement. Although the 4factor E/CFA model indicated an even better fit  RMSEA of 0.028 (90% CI: 0; 0.050)  and tested significantly visàvis the 3factor model (χ ^{2} = 18.876; p = 0.0086 at 7 d.f.), loadings on the forth factor were overall low (i_{1} = 0.002, i_{2} = 0.016, i_{3} = 0.335, i_{4} = 0.005, i_{5} = 0.008, i_{6} = 0.516, i_{7} = 0.164, i_{8} = 0.017, i_{9} = 0.087 and i_{10} = 0.125). Having decided for a model with three factors, we then looked into any possible residual correlations as indicated by the Modification Indices. Two correlations were suggested (i4⇔i5 = 0.425 and i3⇔i6 = 0.196), but freely estimating them in tandem showed different estimates from those projected by the MIs (i4⇔i5 = 0.193 and i3⇔i6 = 0.119). Thus, a threefactor model without residual correlations was regarded the most parsimonious. Findings are summarized in Table 1 (Model B). Factor 1 (anhedonia) encompassed items 1, 2 and 6, although the latter item showed crossloadings on f2 and respective loadings were below the others. Factor 2 (anxiety) included items 3 to 5, and factor 3 (depression) encompassed items 7 through 10. All the three factors were highly correlated. Model fit proved to be reasonably good.
Average variance extracted (ρ _{ ve(.)}), square root of AVE and factor correlations (ϕ _{.↔.}), by factor.^{a}
Factor 1  

ρ _{ ve(f1)}  .56  (.52; .61)  
 .75  (.72; .79)  
Factor 2  
ρ _{ ve(f2)}  .43  (.37; .48)  
 .65  (.61; .70)  
Factor 3  
ρ _{ ve(f3)}  .65  (.61; .69)  
 .81  (.78; .83)  
Factor correlations  
ϕ _{1↔2}  .74  (.67; .81)  
ϕ _{1↔3}  .80  (.76; .85)  
ϕ _{2↔3}  .81  (.74; .87) 
In view of these results and acknowledging an adequate itemfactor specification as conveyed by the interim E/CFA, a bifactor model was fitted to examine the existence of a general factor, yet still accounting for (conditional on) the three specific factors (Table 1, Model D). Model fit improved further  RMSEA (0.026, 90% CI: 0.005; 0.041), CFI (0.997) and TFI (0.995). Formally evaluating the significance of each factor showed that f1 and f2 were highly significant; both χ ^{2} for difference testing between the bifactor model (Model D) and the nested models in turn removing the factors under scrutiny had p ≪ 0.001. The significance of factor 3 was less marked (p = 0.042). Regardless, loadings on the specific factors were all low to moderate . In contrast, all gfactor loading were all fairly high, ranging from 0.51 to 0.81 . As expected, testing the significance of the gfactor by comparing Model D with the threedimensional CFA (Model C) yielded p ≪ 0.001.
Percentage of variance explained by the general and specific factors, errors, and per items, according to the bifactor model (Model D)
Item  Specific factors  gfactor  Error  

1  2  3  
i1  3.0  6.0  1.2  
i2  3.2  5.4  1.4  
i6  .2  4.5  5.1  
i3  .8  3.5  5.7  
i4  2.7  3.4  3.6  
i5  1.2  5.2  3.3  
i7  .37  8.5  1.3  
i8  .77  7.9  1.4  
i9  2.6  7.7  .5  
i10  .38  5.8  3.4  
Subtotal  6.4  4.7  4.1  
Total  15.2  57.9  26.9 
Correlation matrix between factorbased scores and respective raw scores.
Factor score  Raw score  

g  f1  f2  f3  total  f1  f2  f3  
Factor score  
g  1.0  
f1  .200  1.0  
f2  .232  .191  1.0  
f3  .291  .311  .273  1.0  
Raw score  
total  .974  .217  .325  .203  1.0  
f1  .791  .654  .032  .050  .818  1.0  
f2  .738  .029  .784  .047  .801  .483  1.0  
f3  .895  .020  .034  .526  .877  .597  .541  1.0 
Items' and scale assessment of scalability (Loevinger's H coefficient), and checks for violation of monotonicity and double monotonicity assumptions (nonintersections of Item Step Response Functions).
Monotonicity  Double monotonicity  

Item  H  No. of violations ^{a}  Criteria ^{b}  No. of violations ^{a}  Criteria ^{b} 
i1  .4234  0  2 (.0010)  37  
i2  .4086  0  3 (.0015)  46  
i3  .3770  0  2 (.0010)  35  
i4  .3605  1 (.0222)  13  12 (.0062)  82 
i5  .4019  0  2 (.0010)  34  
i6  .3880  1 (.0159)  11  4 (.0021)  38 
i7  .4881  0  3 (.0015)  34  
i8  .4673  0  9 (.0046)  70  
i9  .4775  0  7 (.0036)  62  
i10  .4201  0  0  
Total (scale)  .4208  4 (.0039)       
As judged by the preponderance of mostly positive properties described above, the sequence of increasing intensity/severity suggested by Figures 2 and 3 could therefore be described thus: i3 (selfblaming); i4 (anxious/worried for no reason); i6 (feeling of things getting on top); i8 (sad or miserable); i5 (scared/panicky for no reason); i7 (unhappy and difficulty in sleeping); i2 (no enjoyment to things); i1 (not able to laugh and see the funny side of things); i10 (thoughts of selfharming); and i9 (unhappy and crying).
Discussion
As conveyed in the introduction, while the EPDS has had a huge following over the years, there has also been quite some disagreement about its dimensionality, especially in regards to the intricacies of its factor structure. Discussions as to the number of factors and the internal distribution of items have dominated the research program. Adding knowledge to the psychometric history of the EPDS, this study sought to step forward and examine some properties that had never been previously evaluated. As a positive start, we were able to corroborate the threedimensional structure that has been previously reported in the literature [7–9, 11, 14, 15]. More importantly, however, our study showed that, without further elaboration, this threedimensional structure held rather poor factorbased discriminant validity. In principle, this would discourage using the EPDS as separate subscales.
Moving beyond a basic threefactor structure, results suggested that the EPDS was capable of distinguishing a general factor representing PPD. Moreover, in tandem with the related literature on mood and anxiety disorders [44], three specific factors could also be identified, although less conspicuously. While the three factors were significant on formal testing, specific loadings were low or moderate at the most. This contrasted with the gfactor loadings, which were sensibly higher. Overall, this picture goes in hand with the relatively low contribution of three specific factors to the total and explained variance, as opposed to the clear preponderance of a gfactor in the variance partition. As a side product, the currently proposed model (D) may also have unravelled a persistent problem found since the EPDS' conception, namely, that the consistent 'split' loadings found in several other settings regarding item 6 [10, 14, 15, 53] were likely accountable to its contribution to a general factor that had not been properly specified.
It is thus laudable that the construct may be described as a single factor. The close connection between this general factor and the total raw score also suggests that the traditional practice of adding up raw component item scores to form an overall score is justifiable. To some extent, one may argue that the development process of the EPDS has 'come full circle' since the proposed 10item score sum originally proposed by Cox et al. [2] is apparently tenable in practice as a first approach. Considering the other favourable properties that were detected (high correlation with the gfactor score, scalability and monotonicity), a total raw score may effectively be regarded as an empirical manifest of this general trait. In contrast, it is worth noting that the relatively weak correlations between specificfactor and related raw scores are indicative that separately using the EPDS subscales as raw scores in the postpartum period may not be so straightforward [6, 18]. This is in line with the finding of Brouwers et al. [15] who identified that both anxiety and depressive symptoms were more accurately measured when using the total 10item EPDS score.
Thus, a general PPD dimension that is seized through indicators (also) pertaining to three specific dimensions  anhedonia, anxiety and depression  may apparently be supported. Theoretically, anxiety and anhedonia, represented by their respective items and factors, would be only part of the spectrum of symptoms commonly observed in the presence of depression, not least in the period following childbirth. This proposition seems to agree with previous experimental and clinical observations that within a single episode of depression it is quite common for some symptoms of anxiety precede an overt depression symptomatology [54–56]. The helplessness/hopelessness perspective proposed by Alloy et al. [54] may clarify some features of the anxietydepression comorbidity. Accordingly, the intertwined relationship between anxiety and depressive symptoms is explained by noting that the anticipation of helplessness that comes with anxiety is likely also to trigger certain negativeoutcome expectancies, and when all efforts to exert control eventually fail, overt depression follows. Nonetheless, the understanding that depressive and anxiety manifestations are sequential, alternate or concomitant facets of a common underlying process does also bring cogent theoretical support for the present empirical evidence, which is encouraging [57–60]. The meaningfulness of the actual crescendo in intensity and severity conveyed by mingled anhedonia, anxiety and depressionlike symptoms (as outlined at the end of the results section) offers further support.
As many researchers in the field of measurement development and crosscultural adaptation, we also take a universalistic approach and strive for psychometric consistency [61]. Yet, the answer as to whether a factorial structure will be repeatable in different sociolinguistic and cultural situations requires more research. New evidences of poor factorbased discriminant validity; followed by replicating and extending the models proposed here; along with theorybased external forms of construct validation studies using the EPDS as a general factor (or perhaps its 10item raw score equivalent) should be a constructive way forward.
Yet, albeit still pending replication, it seems reasonable to reinforce the use of the full EPDS as a 10item score. In applied research, the raw score may be indeed used as a firstapproach 'mapper' of the underlying continuum. In a clinical perspective, the currently suggested cutoff points may be applied to help identify women who would benefit from indepth psychiatric evaluation and ensuing follow up [4]. As a reminder, though, one should not ignore that identifying heterogeneous populations bearing primarily specific mood and anxiety disorders would require more complex instruments and that a definitive diagnosis of PPD cannot be established without a specialized assessment through more accurate means.
Conclusion
This study attempted to take the debate on the dimensional structure of the EPDS a step forward. The present results suggest that, although a factorial analysis has again identified three factors, they lack factorbased discriminant validity and should not be used empirically as separate subscales. Nonetheless, albeit pending corroboration from further studies carried out in different settings, the total 10item EPDS scale seems to be well suited as an empirical representation of a general factor representing PPD and its use in clinical practice and applied research is encouraged.
Abbreviations
 AVE:

Average Variance Extracted
 CFA:

Confirmatory Factor Analysis
 CFI:

Comparative Fit Index
 E/CFA:

Exploratory/Confirmatory Factor Analysis
 EFA:

Exploratory Factor Analysis
 EPC:

Expected Parameter Changes
 EPDS:

Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
 MI:

Modification Indices
 PPD:

PostPartum Depression
 RMSEA:

Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
 TLI:

TuckerLewis Index
 WLSMV:

Weighted Least Squares Mean and Variance (adjusted estimator).
Declarations
Acknowledgements and Funding
The study was sponsored by the Fundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ), process n°. E26/110.365/2007  APQ1. MER was partially supported by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPQ), process n°. 306909/20065 and 301221/20090. CLM was partially supported by the Brazilian National Research Council (CNPQ), process n°. 302851/20089. The authors are very thankful to the women who gave up their time to participe in the study, and also acknowledge the substantial contribution made by the field work and by the health professionals of the Primary Health Care units where the research took place.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Gjerdingen DK, Yawn BP: Postpartum Depression Screening: Importance, Methods, Barriers, and Recommendations for Practice. J Am Board Fam Med. 2007, 20: 280288. 10.3122/jabfm.2007.03.060171.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Cox JL, Holden JM, Sagovsky R: Detection of postnatal depression. Development of the 10item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987, 150: 782786. 10.1192/bjp.150.6.782.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 EberhardGran M, Eskild A, Tambs K, Opjordsmoen S, Samuelsen SO: Review of validation studies of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2001, 104: 243249. 10.1034/j.16000447.2001.00187.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Gibson J, McKenzieMcHarg K, Shakespeare J, Price J, Gray R: A systematic review of studies validating the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in antepartum and postpartum women. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2009, 119: 350364. 10.1111/j.16000447.2009.01363.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Halbreich U, Karkun S: Crosscultural and social diversity of prevalence of postpartum depression and depressive symptoms. J Affect Disord. 2006, 91: 97111. 10.1016/j.jad.2005.12.051.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Phillips J, Charles M, Sharpe L, Matthey S: Validation of the subscales of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in a sample of women with unsettled infants. J Affect Disord. 2009, 118: 101112. 10.1016/j.jad.2009.02.004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Tuohy A, McVey C: Subscales measuring symptoms of nonspecific depression, anhedonia, and anxiety in the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Clin Psychol. 2008, 47: 153169. 10.1111/j.20448260.2008.tb00463.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Bowen A, Bowen R, Maslany G, Muhajarine N: Anxiety in a socially highrisk sample of pregnant women in Canada. Can J Psychiatry. 2008, 53: 435440.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Small R, Lumley J, Yelland J, Brown S: The performance of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in English speaking and nonEnglish speaking populations in Australia. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2007, 42: 7078. 10.1007/s0012700601343.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Mazhari S, Nakhaee N: Validation of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in an Iranian sample. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2007, 10: 293297. 10.1007/s007370070204x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 CampoArias A, AyolaCastillo C, PeinadoValencia HM, AmorParra M, Cogollo Z: Validating the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale's internal consistency and factor structure amongst pregnant women in Cartagena, Colombia. Rev Colomb Obstet Gynecol. 2007, 58: 277283.Google Scholar
 Pallant JF, Miller RL, Tennant A: Evaluation of the Edinburgh Post Natal Depression Scale using Rasch analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2006, 6: 2810.1186/1471244X628.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Chabrol H, Teissedre F: Relation between Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale scores at 23 days and 46 weeks postpartum. J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2004, 22: 3339. 10.1080/02646830310001643067.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Ross LE, Gilbert Evans SE, Sellers EM, Romach MK: Measurement issues in postpartum depression part 1: anxiety as a feature of postpartum depression. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2003, 6: 5157. 10.1007/s0073700201551.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Brouwers EP, van Baar AL, Pop VJ: Does the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale measure anxiety?. J Psychosom Res. 2001, 51: 659663. 10.1016/S00223999(01)002458.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Des RivieresPigeon C, Seguin L, Brodeur JM, Perreault M, Boyer G, Colin C, Goulet L: [The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale: the validity of its Quebec version for a population low socioeconomic status mothers]. Can J Commun Ment Health. 2000, 19: 201214.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Pop VJ, Komproe IH, van Son MJ: Characteristics of the Edinburgh Post Natal Depression Scale in The Netherlands. J Affect Disord. 1992, 26: 105110. 10.1016/01650327(92)900414.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Matthey S: Using the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale to screen for anxiety disorders. Depress Anxiety. 2008, 25: 926931. 10.1002/da.20415.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Jomeen J, Martin CR: Replicability and stability of the multidimensional model of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale in late pregnancy. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2007, 14: 319324. 10.1111/j.13652850.2007.01084.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Wilson M: Construct Maps. Constructing measures: An item response modeling approach. 2005, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2338.Google Scholar
 Brown TA: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. 2006, New York, NY: The Guilford PressGoogle Scholar
 Reise SP, Morizot J, Hays RD: The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Qual Life Res. 2007, 16 (Suppl 1): 1931.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Santos MFS, Martins FC, Pasquali L: [Postnatal Depression SelfRating Scales: Brazilian Study]. Rev Psiq Clin. 1999, 26: 3240.Google Scholar
 Loehlin JC: Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis. 2003, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 4Google Scholar
 Muthén B, Asparouhov T: Latent variable analysis with categorical outcomes: Multiplegroup and growth modeling in Mplus. Book Latent variable analysis with categorical outcomes: Multiplegroup and growth modeling in Mplus (Editor ed.^eds.) City. 2002, 4: 122.Google Scholar
 Finney SJ, DiStefano C: Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. Edited by: Hancock GR, Mueller RO. 2006, Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing, 269314.Google Scholar
 Hu L, Bentler P: Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Eq Model. 1999, 6: 155.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Hu LT, Bentler PM: Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychol Meth. 1998, 3: 424453.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Browne MW, Cudeck R: Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Testing structural equation models. Edited by: Bollen KA, Long JS. 1993, London: Sage Publications Inc, 136162.Google Scholar
 Muthén LK, Muthén BO: Mplus User's Guide. 1998, Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén, FifthGoogle Scholar
 Kline RB: Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 2005, New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2Google Scholar
 Tucker LR, Lewis C: A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973, 38: 110. 10.1007/BF02291170.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Marsh HW, Muthén B, Asparouhov A, Lüdtke O, Robitzsch A, Morin AJS, Trautwein U: Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling, Integrating CFA and EFA: Application to Students' Evaluations of University Teaching. Struct Equ Modeling. 2009, 16: 439476. 10.1080/10705510903008220.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Gorsuch RL: Factor analysis. 1983, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2Google Scholar
 Hair JF, Black B, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatham RL: Multivariate data analysis. 2007, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall, 6Google Scholar
 Raykov T, Shrout P: Reliability of scales with general structure: point and interval estimation using a structural equation modeling approach. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002, 9: 195212. 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_3.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Fornell C, Larcker DF: Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res. 1981, 18: 3950. 10.2307/3151312.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Efron B, Tibshirani R: An Introduction to the Bootstrap. 1993, London, UK: Chapman and HallView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Raykov T: Analytic estimation of standard error and confidence interval for scale reliability. Multivariate Behav Res. 2002, 37: 89103. 10.1207/S15327906MBR3701_04.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Clark LA, Watson D: Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. J Abnorm Psychol. 1991, 100: 316336.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Brown TA, Chorpita BF, Barlow DH: Structural relationships among dimensions of the DSMIV anxiety and mood disorders and dimensions of negative affect, positive affect, and autonomic arousal. J Abnorm Psychol. 1998, 107: 179192.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Mineka S, Watson D, Clark LA: Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Annu Rev Psychol. 1998, 49: 377412. 10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.377.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Krueger RF, Finger MS: Using item response theory to understand comorbidity among anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Psychol Assess. 2001, 13: 140151.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Simms LJ, Gros DF, Watson D, O'Hara MW: Parsing the general and specific components of depression and anxiety with bifactor modeling. Depress Anxiety. 2008, 25: E3446. 10.1002/da.20432.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Chen FF, West SG, Sousa KH: A Comparison of Bifactor and SecondOrder Models of Quality of Life. Multivariate Behav Res. 2006, 41: 189225. 10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Satorra A, Bentler PM: A scaled difference chisquare test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika. 2001, 66: 507514. 10.1007/BF02296192.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Embretson SE, Reise SP: Item response theory for psychologists. 2000, Maheah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, PublishersGoogle Scholar
 Sijtsma K, Molenaar IW: Introduction to nonparametric item response theory. 2002, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, IncView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Muthén BO: Appendix 11  Estimation of factor scores. Mplus  Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables Technical Appendices. 1998, Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & MuthénGoogle Scholar
 StataCorp: Stata Statistical Software: Release 10. 2007, College Station (TX): Stata CorporationGoogle Scholar
 Hardouin JB, BonnaudAntignac A, Sebille V: Nonparametric item response theory using Stata. Stata J. 2011, 11: 3051.Google Scholar
 Molenaar IW, Sijtsma K, Boer P: MSP5 for Windows. User's Manual for MSP5 for Windows: A Program for Mokken Scale Analysis for Polytomous Items (Version 5.0). 2000, Groningen, the Nederlands: iec ProGAMMAGoogle Scholar
 Montazeri A, Torkan B, Omidvari S: The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. BMC Psychiatry. 2007, 7: 1110.1186/1471244X711.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
 Alloy L, Kelly K, Mineka S, Clements C: Comorbidity in anxiety and depressive disorders: a helplessness/hopelessness perspective. Comorbidity of mood and anxiety disorders. Edited by: Maser JD, Cloninger CR. 1990, Washington, DC: American Psychiatry Press, 499543.Google Scholar
 Bowlby J: Attachment and Loss. 1973, New York, NY: Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
 Mineka S, Suomi SJ: Social separation in monkeys. Psychol Bull. 1978, 85: 13761400.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Halbreich U, Kahn LS: Atypical depression, somatic depression and anxious depression in women: are they genderpreferred phenotypes?. J Affect Disord. 2007, 102: 245258. 10.1016/j.jad.2006.09.023.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Kendler KS: Major depression and generalised anxiety disorder: same genes, (partly) different environments  revisited. Br J Psychiatry. 1996, 168 (Suppl 30): 6875.Google Scholar
 Kendler KS, Gardner CO, Gatz M, Pedersen NL: The sources of comorbidity between major depression and generalized anxiety disorder in a Swedish national twin sample. Psychol Med. 2007, 37: 453462. 10.1017/S0033291706009135.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 Stahl SM: Mixed anxiety and depression: clinical implications. J Clin Psychiatry. 1993, 54 (Suppl): 3338.PubMedGoogle Scholar
 Herdman M, FoxRushby J, Badia X: A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQol instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res. 1998, 7: 323335. 10.1023/A:1008846618880.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
 The prepublication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/14712288/11/93/prepub
Prepublication history
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.