Depression scales may not work the same for highly intelligent people
Research suggests depression assessment questionnaires can’t reliably compare people with differing intelligence
Psychologists have found that two common questionnaires for assessing depression don’t work for comparing people of differing intelligence—and the problem may extend to other conditions and traits.
For a recent study in the journal Intelligence, Stanisław Czerwiński of the University of Gdańsk in Poland and his colleagues investigated how intelligence correlates with mental health. They hypothesized that the association between intelligence and better mental health starts out positive as it approaches the high end of the IQ scale, then turns negative.
The researchers analyzed data from two U.S. surveys that tracked thousands of people over decades. To estimate IQ, these surveys used an aptitude test that measures math and language abilities. Each used a different well-established mental health scale containing questions about things such as mood, sleep and appetite.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The data revealed the curved relation the researchers were expecting: the highest intelligence levels seemed to be associated with declines in mental health. But then the scientists found a problem. To make sure their results were valid, they ran statistics tests to determine whether the mental health measures work the same for people at different intelligence levels, in part by calculating whether responses to individual questions reflect depression to the same extent for everybody. Both scales failed this test, meaning they can’t be used to compare people with differing intelligence—and conclusions like this study’s can’t be trusted.
The finding casts doubt on previous studies that used these tools without accounting for intelligence and suggests depression screening in doctor’s offices may be flawed. “Imagine we’re measuring height, but our ruler is made of Silly Putty, so the length changes,” says Nicole Beaulieu Perez, a psychiatric nurse at New York University not involved in the research, who studies disparities in mental health care and depression assessment. “How can we know how tall these people are?”
The study doesn’t show what causes this effect, but in hindsight, Czerwiński isn’t surprised. The questionnaires require a lot of interpretation of questions and answers, he says: “Very intelligent people may think about mental health differently and maybe experience symptoms differently.”
To better assess depression in groups of people with varying intelligence or to compare groups that might differ in intelligence, researchers will need better tools. Researchers say new approaches could include digitally tracking sleep and other activities or “experience sampling,” in which study participants are asked how they’re feeling at random intervals rather than offering interpretations after the fact.
In a separate study, Perez recently found that evidence showing that depression scales hold steady across other features, such as gender and culture, is inadequate. “Depression is one of the most measured constructs in science, but we have this measurement problem,” she says.
The study analyzed only two mental health scales, but Czerwiński says the problem is probably widespread wherever depression scales are used. The researchers are currently testing the evaluation of other psychological variables as well—they’ve seen similar results for loneliness, Czerwiński says, and they’re exploring personality measures.
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
