Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-mqrwx Total loading time: 0.796 Render date: 2022-12-01T09:19:02.715Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Article contents

The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 1997

D. P. GOLDBERG
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London; and the Division of Mental Health of the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
R. GATER
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London; and the Division of Mental Health of the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
N. SARTORIUS
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London; and the Division of Mental Health of the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
T. B. USTUN
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London; and the Division of Mental Health of the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
M. PICCINELLI
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London; and the Division of Mental Health of the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
O. GUREJE
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London; and the Division of Mental Health of the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
C. RUTTER
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, London; and the Division of Mental Health of the World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

Abstract

Background. In recent years the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) has been extensively used as a short screening instrument, producing results that are comparable to longer versions of the GHQ.

Methods. The validity of the GHQ-12 was compared with the GHQ-28 in a World Health Organization study of psychological disorders in general health care. Results are presented for 5438 patients interviewed in 15 centres using the primary care version of the Composite International Diagnostic Instrument, or CIDI-PC.

Results. Results were uniformly good, with the average area under the ROC curve 88, range from 83 to 95. Minor variations in the criteria used for defining a case made little difference to the validity of the GHQ, and complex scoring methods offered no advantages over simpler ones. The GHQ was translated into 10 other languages for the purposes of this study, and validity coefficients were almost as high as in the original language. There was no tendency for the GHQ to work less efficiently in developing countries. Finally gender, age and educational level are shown to have no significant effect on the validity of the GHQ.

Conclusions. If investigators wish to use a screening instrument as a case detector, the shorter GHQ is remarkably robust and works as well as the longer instrument. The latter should only be preferred if there is an interest in the scaled scores provided in addition to the total score.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 1997 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
2145
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *