Skip to main content
    Depression · 15 items · 0–15 · Sheikh JI, Yesavage JA (1986). Clin Gerontol.

    Geriatric Depression Scale (Short Form): Scoring, Cutoffs & Interpretation

    Fifteen-item yes/no screen for depression in older adults.

    GDS-150 / 15

    Over the past week, how often have you been bothered by…

    01

    Are you basically satisfied with your life?

    Item score-
    02

    Have you dropped many of your activities and interests?

    Item score-
    03

    Do you feel that your life is empty?

    Item score-
    04

    Do you often get bored?

    Item score-
    05

    Are you in good spirits most of the time?

    Item score-
    06

    Are you afraid that something bad is going to happen to you?

    Item score-
    07

    Do you feel happy most of the time?

    Item score-
    08

    Do you often feel helpless?

    Item score-
    09

    Do you prefer to stay at home, rather than going out and doing new things?

    Item score-
    10

    Do you feel you have more problems with memory than most?

    Item score-
    11

    Do you think it is wonderful to be alive now?

    Item score-
    12

    Do you feel pretty worthless the way you are now?

    Item score-
    13

    Do you feel full of energy?

    Item score-
    14

    Do you feel that your situation is hopeless?

    Item score-
    15

    Do you think that most people are better off than you?

    Item score-
    0 of 15 answered0 / 15

    02 - The clinician's brief

    Last reviewed: · Reviewed by Lotte Kjær Svalberg

    01 - What it measures

    What this scale measures.

    The GDS-15 is a fifteen-item yes/no screen for depressive symptoms in older adults, asking how the person has felt over the past week. It was built specifically for later life: it deliberately omits the somatic symptoms - sleep disturbance, fatigue, appetite change - that overlap with normal ageing and physical illness, and which inflate scores on general depression scales in this population. Five items are phrased positively and reverse-scored; the total runs from 0 to 15, with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms.

    The yes/no format is a design choice, not a simplification. Graded response options (such as the four-point frequency scale of the PHQ-9) can be difficult for people with mild cognitive impairment or sensory limitations; a binary answer is quicker and less error-prone. The GDS-15 screens for the presence of depression - it is not a diagnostic instrument, and a positive screen calls for clinical assessment.

    02 - Origin & purpose

    Where it comes from.

    The original 30-item Geriatric Depression Scale was developed by Yesavage and colleagues in 1982-83 as the first depression scale designed from scratch for older adults, with items empirically selected for their ability to discriminate depressed from non-depressed elderly people 1. Sheikh and Yesavage published the 15-item short form in 1986, selecting the items with the highest correlation with depressive symptoms in the validation work, so that the screen could fit into a routine consultation 2.

    The scale was developed partly with United States federal support and is in the public domain; Stanford University's Aging Clinical Research Center distributes the original English versions and many translations without fee. That has made it one of the most widely used depression screens in geriatric medicine, care homes and old-age psychiatry worldwide.

    03 - Scoring & cutoffs

    How scoring works.

    Each of the fifteen items scores 0 or 1; items 1, 5, 7, 11 and 13 are positively worded and score a point for a "no" answer. The standard cutoff is ≥5, which meta-analytic evidence puts at a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 and specificity of 0.77 for major depression 4. The severity bands shown below (0-4 normal, 5-8 mild, 9-11 moderate, 12-15 severe) are widely used conventions for grading a positive screen rather than validated diagnostic thresholds; any score of 5 or more warrants a fuller clinical assessment.

    Score
    Severity
    Interpretation
    0–4
    Normal
    No depression indicated.
    5–8
    Mild
    Mild depressive symptoms suggested.
    9–11
    Moderate
    Moderate depression suggested.
    12–15
    Severe
    Severe depression suggested. Further assessment recommended.

    04 - Validation evidence

    How well it performs.

    Diagnostic accuracy has been summarised in two systematic reviews. Krishnamoorthy and colleagues (2020) pooled studies at the standard ≥5 cutoff and found sensitivity 0.89 and specificity 0.77 4; an earlier meta-analysis of brief GDS versions (Pocklington 2016) reported pooled sensitivity 0.86 and specificity 0.79 with an area under the curve of 0.90 3. Internal consistency is good, with Cronbach's alpha around 0.88 in validation studies. Among very old adults, the scale remains usable in mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment: a Swedish study found it informative down to MMSE scores of about 10 5 - though most diagnostic-accuracy studies excluded people with significant cognitive impairment, so accuracy estimates in that group are less secure.

    0.89
    SENSITIVITY (≥5)
    0.77
    SPECIFICITY (≥5)
    0.90
    AUC (BRIEF GDS FORMS)
    ≈0.88
    CRONBACH'S α

    05 - How it compares

    How it compares to the alternatives.

    Instrument
    Items
    Time
    When to reach for it
    GDS-15
    15
    ~5 min
    Designed for later life; omits somatic items that mislead in older, medically ill patients. Public domain.
    9
    2-3 min
    The general-adult default; graded severity and change-tracking, but somatic items can inflate scores in older, medically ill patients.
    2
    <1 min
    Ultra-brief universal screening gate; no age-specific design.
    10
    ~5 min
    The same population-specific logic applied perinatally rather than to later life.
    20
    ~5-8 min
    Research-cohort comparability; graded responses that some older adults find harder.
    10
    ~5 min
    Diagnosis-aligned scoring (ICD-10/DSM) where a diagnostic algorithm is wanted.
    GDS-30
    30
    ~10 min
    The original long form; rarely needed now the short form carries the screening evidence.

    06 - When to use it

    Right tool, wrong tool.

    Reach for it when

    • -Screening adults roughly 65 and over in outpatient, inpatient, primary-care and care-home settings.
    • -Older patients with physical comorbidity where somatic items would mislead.
    • -Patients with mild-to-moderate cognitive impairment (MMSE ≥ 10) who can manage yes/no answers.
    • -Routine screening where speed and simple administration matter.

    Reach for something else when

    • -Younger adults - use the PHQ-9.
    • -Diagnosis: a positive screen needs clinical assessment.
    • -Tracking week-to-week treatment response, where the binary items make it less sensitive to change than graded scales.
    • -Severe dementia, where self-report becomes unreliable.
    • -Suicide-risk assessment: it contains no suicidal-ideation item, so risk must be asked about separately.

    07 - Confidence & precision

    Reading the score with care.

    No widely accepted standard error of measurement or minimal clinically important difference has been established for the GDS-15, so treat small score changes cautiously. Precision is best framed in screening terms: at the ≥5 cutoff roughly one depressed patient in ten screens negative (sensitivity 0.89), and about one in four positive screens will not have major depression on formal assessment (specificity 0.77). Movement of a point or two near the cutoff should prompt a conversation, not a conclusion.

    08 - Limitations

    What it cannot tell you.

    Most validation studies excluded people with significant cognitive impairment, so accuracy in dementia is uncertain and self-report becomes unreliable as impairment progresses. Specificity is modest - around a quarter of positive screens are false positives, so it over-identifies relative to diagnostic interview. The severity bands above the cutoff are conventions rather than validated thresholds. The binary format that makes it easy to answer also makes it comparatively insensitive to change, limiting its value for monitoring treatment response. And it omits suicidal ideation entirely, which must always be assessed separately in depressed older adults.

    Common questions from clinicians

    FAQ

    References

    Source literature.

    1. [1]Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report (1982-83)
    2. [2]Sheikh JI, Yesavage JA Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS): recent evidence and development of a shorter version (1986)
    3. [3]Pocklington C, Gilbody S, Manea L, McMillan D The diagnostic accuracy of brief versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale: a systematic review and meta-analysis (2016)
    4. [4]Krishnamoorthy Y, Rajaa S, Rehman T Diagnostic accuracy of various forms of geriatric depression scale for screening of depression among older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis (2020)
    5. [5]Conradsson M, Rosendahl E, Littbrand H, et al. Usefulness of the Geriatric Depression Scale 15-item version among very old people with and without cognitive impairment (2013)

    Scale without compromise

    See how Aisel removes friction where it costs most. A 20-minute walkthrough tailored to your clinic.