We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Few previous studies have established Snaith–Hamilton Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) cut-off values using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and applied these values to compare predictors of anhedonia between clinical and nonclinical groups.
Aims
To determine the optimal cut-off values for the SHAPS and use them to identify predictors of anhedonia in clinical and nonclinical groups in Taiwan.
Method
This cross-sectional and correlational study used convenience sampling to recruit 160 patients from three hospitals and 412 students from two universities in northern Taiwan. Data analysis included receiver operating characteristic curve, univariate and multivariate analyses.
Results
The optimal SHAPS cut-off values were 29.5 and 23.5 for the clinical and nonclinical groups, respectively. Moreover, two-stage analysis revealed that participants in the clinical group who perceived themselves as nondepressed, and participants in the nonclinical group who did not skip classes and whose fathers exhibited higher levels of care and protection were less likely to attain the cut-off values. Conversely, participants in the nonclinical group who reported lower academic satisfaction and were unwilling to seek help from family or friends were more likely to attain the cut-off values.
Conclusions
Our findings highlight the importance of optimal cut-off values in screening for depression risk within clinical and nonclinical groups. Accordingly, the development of comprehensive, individualised programmes to monitor variation trends in SHAPS scores and relevant predictors of anhedonia across different target populations is crucial.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.