Cited by 273Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and AccessPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Quick and easy self-rating of Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Validity of the Dutch web-based GAD-7, GAD-2 and GAD-SI

Donker, Tara, van Straten, Annemieke, Marks, Isaac, Cuijpers, Pim·2011·Psychiatry Research

Abstract

Screening of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD), which is often undetected and untreated, could be improved by quick and easy web-based data collection. This paper aims to validate the web-based self-rated 7-item GAD-7, its shortened 2-item GAD-2 and a single item from the GAD-7 scale (GAD-SI) to screen for GAD. Of a total of 502 subjects aged 18-80 who rated the web-based GAD-7, Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale (CES-D) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), 157 (31%) subjects had a WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV-disorders by telephone. The GAD-7 had good reliability. Subjects with a GAD-diagnosis had significantly higher means on GAD-2, GAD-SI and GAD-7 than subjects without a GAD-diagnosis. The AUC (Area Under the Curve) of the GAD-SI and GAD-2 was accurate and not significantly different to the GAD-7 AUC. The web-based GAD-SI, GAD-2 and GAD-7 are reliable, valid tools to quickly screen for GAD in busy mental health settings and clinical research. More research is needed to validate the GAD-SI 'Do you have trouble relaxing' to see if its screening properties approach those of the GAD-7.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.psychres.2011.01.016

Cites

49 of 49 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
Donker, T., van Straten, A., Marks, I., & Cuijpers, P.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Donker, Tara
Venue
Psychiatry Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-06
Volume
188
Issue
1
Pages
58-64
ISSN
0165-1781 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1987846124
Cited by
273
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 4
FWCI
8.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychiatry Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
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
generalized anxiety disorder, GAD-7, GAD-2, web-based screening, self-rated anxiety, screening validity, screening reliability, anxiety screening, Dutch adaptation
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety Disorders, Diagnosis, Differential, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Reproducibility of Results, Area Under Curve, Internet, Young Adult, Diagnostic Self Evaluation

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