Research report
Development and preliminary validation of the male depression risk scale: Furthering the assessment of depression in men

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.08.013Get rights and content

Abstract

Background

The last decade has seen the burgeoning publication of male-specific depression rating scales designed to assess externalising depression symptoms (e.g., substance use, risk-taking, and aggression). These symptoms are theorised to reflect the behavioural manifestation of depression amongst men who rigidly conform to masculine norms. To date, research findings from these scales have been mixed, and each scale is limited by psychometric shortcomings or constrained assessment of symptom sub-domains.

Methods

The Male Depression Risk Scale (MDRS-22) was developed from online, non-clinical, community samples. Following best-practice recommendations, initial scale items were subject to expert review. Study 1 (male n=386) reduced the item pool via exploratory factor analysis while Study 2 (male n=499, female n=291) refined and validated the factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis. Sex and masculinity comparisons were evaluated.

Results

Goodness of fit indices validated the six-factor solution with subscales assessing: emotional suppression, drug use, alcohol use, anger and aggression, somatic symptoms and risk-taking. Between-groups analyses indicated higher MDRS-22 scores for males reporting higher conformity to masculine norms.

Limitations

Data were drawn from an online community sample without use of diagnostic interview. Test-retest correlations were not evaluated. Future research should look to examine longitudinal typical-externalising symptom trajectories across a range of clinical and non-clinical settings.

Conclusions

The MDRS-22 reports satisfactory preliminary psychometric properties with validated subscales enabling multidimensional assessment of theorised externalising symptom sub-domains. MDRS-22 scale brevity may facilitate use in primary care settings enabling better identification of at-risk males.

Introduction

The established 2:1 incidence rate of major depressive disorder (favouring females) remains poorly understood (Möller-Leimkühler and Yucel, 2010) and belies the fact that in comparison to females, males are four times more likely to die by suicide (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010). To address the issue of men's suicide, peak representative bodies and public health researchers continue to call for improved assessment and treatment of depression in men (e.g., American Psychological Association, 2005, Pitman et al., 2012).

Males are known to respond to negative emotional states with elevated levels of substance use and externalising behaviours such as aggression and risk taking (e.g., Cochran and Rabinowitz, 2000), and there is growing suggestion that generic diagnostic criteria which exclude such behaviours inadequately identify males experiencing underlying affective disorder (e.g., Cochran and Rabinowitz, 2000, Cochran and Rabinowitz, 2003, Hammond, 2012, Pollack, 1998, Rochlen et al., 2010). The expression of externalising depression symptoms is theorised to result from socialisation processes and associated conformity to masculine norms emphasising male autonomy, stoicism and invulnerability (Rutz, 2001), where anger is the only negative emotion that men are socially permitted to exhibit (Fields and Cochran, 2011). In particular, externalising symptoms are hypothesised to occur in males who are unable and/or unwilling to disclose or demonstrate typical depression symptoms out of fear of being viewed as weak, inferior or vulnerable (Cochran and Rabinowitz, 2000, Cochran and Rabinowitz, 2003, Hammond, 2012, Pollack, 1998, Rochlen et al., 2010).

The Gotland Male Depression Scale (GMDS; Zierau et al., 2002) was the first screening instrument designed to assess both typical depression symptoms (e.g., depressed mood, hopelessness, fatigue, indecision, and sleep disturbance) and theorised masculine congruent externalising depression symptoms (e.g., irritability, aggression, impulsive behaviour and problematic alcohol use). To date, such gender-specific externalising symptoms have been largely overlooked in the depression-related medical literature (Rutz and Rihmer, 2009), but are consistent with men's qualitative reports of depression (e.g., Oliffe et al., 2010, Rochlen et al., 2010).

While the GMDS has been instrumental in precipitating a burgeoning of research into men's mental health, it has been widely criticised for its psychometric shortcomings and limited clinical utility (e.g., Ajayi, 2011, Grace et al., 2013, Diamond, 2008, Levin and Sabacora, 2007, Magovcevic and Addis, 2008, Martin, 2010, Melrose, 2010, Stromberg de Sousa Soares, 2013). Studies have repeatedly failed to validate the hypothesised a priori factor structure of the GMDS (e.g., Innamorti et al., 2011, Möller-Leimkühler et al., 2007, Möller-Leimkühler and Yucel, 2010, Rice, 2012), and research findings related to sex and gender role differences central to the theoretical underpinnings on the GMDS have been inconsistent (Fields and Cochran, 2011).

In response to the shortcomings of the GMDS a range of additional male specific depression rating scales have been published (e.g., Brownhill et al., 2003; Diamond, 2008, Martin, 2010). Unfortunately these scales also lack scientific rigour – relying either on inadequate psychometric development processes (including small validation samples), or binary response formats that preclude the use multivariate statistical validation. The one exception to this is the psychometrically rigorous Masculine Depression Scale (MDS; Magovcevic and Addis, 2008). Regrettably, however, due to the use of a relatively small validation sample (N=102), initial factor analysis of the MDS items failed to adequately differentiate sub-domains of externalising responses into various factors, resulting in a relatively lengthy scale comprising only two subscales (e.g., internalising symptoms – 33 items, externalising symptoms – 11 items).

Although some case study reports suggest that externalising depression symptoms are significant in the presentation of men's depression (e.g., Kantor, 2007, Rutz and Rihmer, 2009, Rabinowitz and Cochran, 2008), this notion currently fails to rest on a strong empirical foundation (Addis, 2008). Clinicians and researchers have astutely critiqued the adequacy of the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder in relation to gender related constructs and men's externalising responses, and interested readers are directed to this commentary (e.g., Addis, 2008; Fields and Cochran, 2011; Möller-Leimkühler et al., 2004, Wilhelm, 2009). Regardless however, innovative approaches are required to improve detection of suicidal people in general (Linehan, 2008), and in men in particular (Rutz and Rihmer, 2007), and it is possible that modifications to assessment procedures may assist to identify potentially high-risk (e.g., suicidal) men (Wide et al., 2011). While there is general agreement that researchers and clinicians should actively assess men's depression symptoms within the context of cultural norms related to masculinity (e.g., Hooper et al., 2012), the field currently remains without a brief psychometrically rigorous male-specific rating scale assessing depression risk that is both multidimensional (e.g., comprising subscales assessing multiple symptom domains), and specifically designed to assess externalising depression symptoms. The present studies were purposively designed to fill this research and assessment gap.

Study 1 aimed to refine a large item pool and evaluate initial scale factor structure. The Male Depression Risk Scale (MDRS) was expected to report a multidimensional structure with satisfactory preliminary internal consistency. Study 2 sought to (i) further refine and validate scale structure using confirmatory factor analysis, and (ii) evaluate MDRS scores according to sex and self-reported masculinity. Given externalising depression symptoms are hypothesised to have particular salience for stoic and traditional men (Rutz and Rihmer, 2009, Zierau et al., 2002), an interaction was expected between greater conformity to masculine norms (e.g., greater adherence to emotional control, self-reliance, and pursuit of status) and biological sex. It was predicted that greater conformity to masculine norms would correspond to significantly higher MDRS scores in males relative to females.

Section snippets

Scale development process

Thorough review of the relevant research literature led to the identification of nine broad symptom sub-domains relevant to men's experiences of depression (Rice, 2012). These nine domains, similar to those identified by Magovcevic and Addis (2008) were operationalised as anger (cognitive awareness of, or expression and escalation of anger); aggression (behaviours displaying physical or verbal aggression); distraction and avoidance (behaviours that may be used to distract from, or avoid dealing

Participants

Given the MDRS was primarily designed as a screening tool for men in the wider community (e.g., men from a non-clinical sample), a community cohort was targeted for sampling. Data was collected from a community sample of 386 males (M=32.74 years, SD=12.58) using an online questionnaire (see Table 1 for sample characteristics).

Procedure

Ethical approval was provided for this study by the Australian Catholic University Human Research Ethics Committee (V2010 47). Participants were recruited via paid

Study 2 – confirmatory factor analysis

It is recommended that scale developers perform confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in a separate sample when seeking to validate new assessment instruments following exploratory factor analysis (DeVellis, 2003; Worthington and Whittaker, 2006). In Study 2 CFA proceeded on the basis of the second-order (e.g., seven subscale) factor structure identified in Study 1.

Discussion

The present research was undertaken with the goal of developing and validating a brief male-specific depression risk rating scale sensitive to externalising depression symptoms. Externalising depression symptoms (such as anger, substance abuse and risk-taking behaviours) have received increasing research and clinical attention as potential markers of depression in men who adhere to masculine norms (e.g., American Psychological Association, 2005, Fields and Cochran, 2011).

In addressing the

Role of funding source

The funding source (Australian Commonwealth Government) provided a Postgraduate Scholarship with stipend to fund the principal author in undertaking this research.

Conflict of interest

Nil conflicts of interest declared.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Prof. John Ogrodniczuk for his helpful comments related to this research and Daniel Moore for assistance with data collection.

References (63)

  • S. Brownhill et al.

    ‘Big Build’: hidden depression in men

    Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

    (2005)
  • B.M. Byrne

    Structural Equation Modelling with AMOS—Basic concepts, Applications, and Programming

    (2001)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010. Suicide: Facts at a glance. Retrieved from:...
  • C.D. Chuick et al.

    A qualitative investigation of depression in men

    Journal of Men, Masculinities

    (2009)
  • J.C. Clarke et al.

    A comparison of blogs by depressed men and women

    Issues in Mental Health Nurs

    (2008)
  • S. Cochran et al.

    Men and Depression: Clinical and Empirical Perspectives

    (2000)
  • S. Cochran et al.

    Gender-sensitive recommendations for assessment and treatment of depression in men

    Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

    (2003)
  • R.F. DeVellis

    Scale Development: Theory and Applications

    (2003)
  • J. Diamond

    Gender and Depression: Typical and Atypical Symptoms and suicide risk

    (2008)
  • A.J. Fields et al.

    Men and depression: current perspectives for health care professionals

    American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine

    (2011)
  • F.J. Floyd et al.

    Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments

    Psychological Assessment

    (1995)
  • S.L. Grace et al.

    Measurement of depressive symptoms among cardian patients: Should sex differences be considered?

    Journal of Health Psychology

    (2013)
  • C.J. Hamiliton et al.

    Minority stress, masculinity, and social norms predicting gay men's health risk behaviors

    Journal of Counseling Psychology

    (2009)
  • W. Hammond

    Taking it like a man: masculine role norms as moderators of the racial discrimination–depressive symptoms association among African American Men

    American Journal of Public Health

    (2012)
  • C. Heifner

    The male experience of depression

    Perspectives in Psychiatric Care

    (1997)
  • L. Hooper et al.

    Scalar equivalence in self-rated depressive symptomatology as measured by the beck depression inventory-II: do racial and gender differences in college students exist?

    Psychology

    (2012)
  • M. Innamorti et al.

    Psychometric properties of the Gotland Scale for Depression in Italian psychiatric inpatients and uts utility in the prediction of suicide risk

    Journal of Affective Disorders

    (2011)
  • M. Kantor

    Lifting the Weight. Understanding Depression in Men: Its Causes and Solutions

    (2007)
  • K. Kroenke et al.

    The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure

    Journal of General Internal Medicine

    (2001)
  • Y. Levin et al.

    Depression

  • M. Linehan

    Suicide intervention research: a field in desperate need of development

    Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior

    (2008)
  • Cited by (159)

    • The effects of depressed mood and 0.05 % blood alcohol concentration on risky driving in males

      2023, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    1

    The principal author was supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award provided by the Australian Commonwealth Government.

    View full text