Cited by 298Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Validity of the GAD-7 scale as an outcome measure of disability in patients with generalized anxiety disorders in primary care

Ruiz, Miguel A., Zamorano, Enric, García-Campayo, Javier, Pardo, Antonio, Freire, Olga, Rejas, Javier·2011·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Objective To explore the validity of the GAD-7 scale as an outcome measure of disability in primary care.Methods A random sample of 212 subjects was recruited in primary care clinics; 50% diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) by DSM-IV criteria and 50% concurrent matched controls. The GAD-7, the Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A), and the abridged 12-item version of World Health Organization Disability Scale (WHO-DAS-II) were administered. The number of visits to primary care and specialty clinics was also recorded.Results Strong and significant (p<0.001) correlations were found between GAD-7 and HAM-A (r=0.852) and WHO-DAS-II (r=0.704) scores, particularly for Participation in Society (r=0.741), Understanding and Communication (r=0.679), and Life Activities (0.638) dimensions. Moderate but significant correlations were also found between GAD-7 score and the number of visits to Primary Care (r=0.393) and Specialty clinics (r=0.373). In all cases, an overall relation was observed between GAD-7 severity levels and disability scores [F (3,208)=25.4, p<0.001] as assessed by the WHO-DAS II, with higher mean disability values related to higher severity levels.Conclusions The GAD-7 scale has been shown to highly correlate not only with specific anxiety but also with disability measures. It has been shown that more severe GAD levels correlate with higher disability states and tend to demand more health care attention. As the GAD-7 is self-administered and is not time consuming, this instrument could be a good choice to explore the level of patient disability in subjects with GAD in primary care settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2010.07.010

Cites

44 of 44 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
Ruiz, M. A., Zamorano, E., García-Campayo, J., Pardo, A., Freire, O., & Rejas, J.
Affiliations
  • Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (ES)
  • Pfizer (Spain) (ES)
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-02
Volume
128
Issue
3
Pages
277-286
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2093568030
Cited by
298
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
World Health Organization
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
GAD-7, generalized anxiety disorder, disability, outcome measure validity, Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, primary care, health care utilization, anxiety levels, self-report questionnaire
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Anxiety Disorders, Disability Evaluation, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Primary Health Care, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Spain, Reproducibility of Results

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