The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Alternative Factor Models and Factorial Invariance of the GHQ-12: A Large Sample Analysis Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
Abstract
This study tested alternative factor models of the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12), based on previous research findings, with a large sample using confirmatory factor analysis. An alternative models framework was used to test 6 factor analytic models. A 3-factor model was the best explanation of the sample data. The 3 factors were labeled Anxiety-Depression, Social Dysfunction, and Loss of Confidence. The model was found to be factorially invariant between men and women. The utility of the 3 subscales, as opposed to the total GHQ-12 score, is questioned as they appear to provide little information beyond that of a general factor.
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
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424 · Cited by 12,298
Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach
Steiger, J. H. (1990) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4 · Cited by 7,408
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.16 · Cited by 5,512
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
The General Health Questionnaire: Reliability and validity for Australian youth
Winefield, H. R., Goldney, R. D., Winefield, A. H., & Tiggemann, M. (1989) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.3109/00048678909062592 · Cited by 110
Cited by
Transformational leadership and psychological well-being: The mediating role of meaningful work.
Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & McKee, M. C. (2007) · Journal of Occupational Health Psychology · doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193 · Cited by 1,117
Epidemiology of Psychological Distress
Drapeau, A., Marchand, A., & Beaulieu-Prevost, D. (2012) · Mental Illnesses - Understanding, Prediction and Control · doi:10.5772/30872 · Cited by 472
Jones, G. T., Power, C., & Macfarlane, G. J. (2009) · Pain · doi:10.1016/j.pain.2009.02.003 · Cited by 287
A longitudinal test of the job demands-resources model among Australian university academics
Boyd, C. M., Bakker, A. B., Pignata, S., Winefield, A. H., Gillespie, N., & Stough, C. (2011) · Applied Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2010.00429.x · Cited by 240
The development of compulsive internet use and mental health: A four-year study of adolescence
Ciarrochi, J., Parker, P., Sahdra, B., Marshall, S., Jackson, C., Gloster, A. T., & Heaven, P. (2016) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000070 · Cited by 160
Metadata
- Authors
- Shevlin, M., & Adamson, G.
- Venue
- Psychological Assessment
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 231-236
- ISSN
- 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-134X
- OpenAlex
- W2106240916
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 11.51
- 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: Alternative Factor Models and Factorial Invariance of the GHQ-12: A Large Sample Analysis Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/1040-3590.17.2.231
- The paper
- Shevlin, M., & Adamson, G. (2005). Alternative Factor Models and Factorial Invariance of the GHQ-12: A Large Sample Analysis Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Psychological Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.2.231
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.
