The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The stability of the factor structure of the General Health Questionnaire
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Different versions of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), including the GHQ-12 and GHQ-28 have been subjected to factor analysis in a variety of countries. The World Health Organization study of psychological disorders in general health care offered the opportunity to investigate the factor structure of both GHQ versions in 15 different centres. METHODS: The factor structures of the GHQ-12 and GHQ-28 extracted by principal component analysis were compared in participating centres. The GHQ-12 was completed by 26,120 patients and 5,273 patients completed the GHQ-28. The factor structure of the GHQ-28 found in Manchester in this study was compared with that found in the earlier study in 1979. RESULTS: For the GHQ-12, substantial factor variation between centres was found. After rotation, two factors expressing depression and social dysfunction could be identified. For the GHQ-28, factor variance was less. In general, the original C (social dysfunction) and D (depression) scales of the GHQ-28 were more stable than the A (somatic symptoms) and B (anxiety) scales. Multiple cross-loadings occurred in both versions of the GHQ suggesting correlation of the extracted factors. In Manchester, the factor structure of the GHQ had changed since its development. Validity as a case detector was not affected by factor variance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm that despite factor variation for the GHQ-12, two domains, depression and social dysfunction, appear across the 15 centres. In the scaled GHQ-28, two of the scales were remarkably robust between the centres. The cross-correlation between the other two subscales, probably reflects the strength of the relationship between anxiety and somatic symptoms existing in different locations.
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
Cited by
Nurmikko, T. J., Serpell, M. G., Hoggart, B., Toomey, P. J., Morlion, B. J., & Haines, D. (2007) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2007.08.028 · Cited by 431
Castilho, P., Pinto-Gouveia, J., & Duarte, J. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1002/jclp.22187 · Cited by 222
Hankins, M. (2008) · Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health · doi:10.1186/1745-0179-4-10 · Cited by 158
GHQ increases among Scottish 15 year olds 1987–2006
Sweeting, H., Young, R., & West, P. (2009) · Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology · doi:10.1007/s00127-008-0462-6 · Cited by 83
Gouveia, V. V., Barbosa, G. A., Andrade, E. D. O., & Carneiro, M. B. (2010) · Cadernos de Saúde Pública · doi:10.1590/s0102-311x2010000700023 · Cited by 51
“Responding to the recommendation to consider a large sample 2, it aimed at (1) knowing the factor structure underlying the 12-item of the GHQ by performing an exploratory factor analysis; (2) testing the two most common factor models to explain the data obtained by this measure, as discussed in the literature (one- an…”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- WERNEKE, U., GOLDBERG, D. P., YALCIN, I., & ÜSTÜN, B. T.
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2000-07
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 823-829
- ISSN
- 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8978
- OpenAlex
- W2012107843
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.03
- 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: The stability of the factor structure of the General Health Questionnaire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0033291799002287
- The paper
- WERNEKE, U., GOLDBERG, D. P., YALCIN, I., & ÜSTÜN, B. T. (2000). The stability of the factor structure of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291799002287
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.