The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comparison of the validity of two psychiatric screening questionnaires (GHQ-12 and SRQ-20) in Brazil, using Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis
Abstract
Synopsis: The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) (Goldberg, 1972) and the Self Report Questionnaire (SRQ-20) (Harding et al.1980) were simultaneously validated against the criterion of the Clinical Interview Schedule (CIS) (Goldberg et al.1970) in three primary care clinics in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil. A comparison between the two screening instruments was carried out. The product-moment correlation between the two sets of scores was +0·72, and the validation coefficients for the GHQ-12 and the SRQ-20 were respectively: sensitivity 85% and 83%; specificity 79% and 80%; overall misclassification rate 18% and 19%. The two screening instruments were further compared by the application of Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis and, again, were found to be very similar in performance. The area under the ROC curve was 0·87 for the GHQ and 0·90 for the SRQ-20 (Z = 0·92, NS). Both psychiatric screening instruments were therefore found to be acceptably valid when assessed against the CIS in three primary care settings in Brazil. The application of ROC analysis to studies of this kind was feasible and straightforward. It was found to be superior to the conventional method of presentation of validity data. It is recommended that the application of ROC analysis to psychiatric screening studies be further utilized and explored.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Harding, T. W., De Arango, V., Baltazar, J., Climent, C. E., Ibrahim, H. H. A., Ladrido-Ignacio, L., & Wig, N. N. (1980) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291700043993 · Cited by 1,037
Cited by
The Validity of Two Versions of the GHQ in the WHO Study of Mental Illness in General Health Care
GOLDBERG, D. P., GATER, R., SARTORIUS, N., USTUN, T. B., PICCINELLI, M., GUREJE, O., & RUTTER, C. (1997) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291796004242 · Cited by 3,657
Performance of a Five-Item Mental Health Screening Test
Berwick, D. M., Murphy, J. M., Goldman, P. A., Ware, J. E., Barsky, A. J., & Weinstein, M. C. (1991) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199102000-00008 · Cited by 1,660
Lewis, G., Pelosi, A. J., Araya, R., & Dunn, G. (1992) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291700030415 · Cited by 1,487
Saravanan, P., Chau, W. ‐., Roberts, N., Vedhara, K., Greenwood, R., & Dayan, C. M. (2002) · Clinical Endocrinology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2265.2002.01654.x · Cited by 514
Screening for Adjustment Disorders and Major Depressive Disorders in Cancer In-Patients
Razavi, D., Delvaux, N., Farvacques, C., & Robaye, E. (1990) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.156.1.79 · Cited by 514
Metadata
- Authors
- De Jesus Mari, J., & Williams, P.
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1985-08
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 651-659
- ISSN
- 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8978
- OpenAlex
- W2162800172
- Cited by
- 469
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 16.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comparison of the validity of two psychiatric screening questionnaires (GHQ-12 and SRQ-20) in Brazil, using Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0033291700031500
- The paper
- De Jesus Mari, J., & Williams, P. (1985). A comparison of the validity of two psychiatric screening questionnaires (GHQ-12 and SRQ-20) in Brazil, using Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis. Psychological Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291700031500
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.