Cited by 168Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The Psychometric Properties of PHQ-4 Depression and Anxiety Screening Scale Among College Students

Khubchandani, Jagdish, Brey, Rebecca, Kotecki, Jerome, Kleinfelder, JoAnn, Anderson, Jason·2016·Archives of Psychiatric Nursing

Abstract

Depression and anxiety are some of the most common causes of morbidity, social dysfunction, and reduced academic performance in college students. The combination of improved surveillance and access to care would result in better outreach. Brief screening tools can help reach larger populations of college students efficiently. However, reliability and validity of brief screeners for anxiety and depression have not been assessed in college students. Thus, the purpose of this study was to assess in a sample of college students the psychometric properties of PHQ-4, a brief screening tool for depression and anxiety. Undergraduate students were recruited from general education classes at a Midwestern university. Students were given a questionnaire that asked them whether they had been diagnosed by a doctor or health professional with anxiety or depression. Next, they were asked to respond to the items on the PHQ-4 scale. A total of 934 students responded to the survey (response rate=72%). Majority of the participants were females (63%) and Whites (80%). The internal reliability of PHQ-4 was found to be high (α=0.81). Those who were diagnosed with depression or anxiety had statistically significantly higher scores on PHQ-4 (p<0.01). Corrected item total correlations for PHQ-4 were between r=0.66 and r=0.80. PHQ-4 operating characteristics were estimated and area under the curve (AUC) values were 0.835 and 0.787, respectively for anxiety and depression. The PHQ-4 is a reliable and valid tool that can serve as a mass screener for depression and anxiety in young adults. Widespread implementation of this screening tool should be explored across college campuses.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apnu.2016.01.014

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Khubchandani, J., Brey, R., Kotecki, J., Kleinfelder, J., & Anderson, J.
Affiliations
Ball State University (US)
Corresponding author
Khubchandani, Jagdish
Venue
Archives of Psychiatric Nursing
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
457-462
ISSN
0883-9417 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2277022811
Cited by
168
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2
FWCI
11.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Archives of Psychiatric Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
PHQ-4, depression screening, anxiety screening, university students, psychometric properties, reliability statistics, validity, brief screening instrument, mental health surveillance, young adults
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Universities, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review