Cited by 282Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research Topics

Psychometric comparison of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 and the Penn State Worry Questionnaire for measuring response during treatment of generalised anxiety disorder

Dear, Blake F., Titov, Nickolai, Sunderland, Matthew, McMillan, Dean, Anderson, Tracy, Lorian, Carolyn, Robinson, Emma·2011·Cognitive Behaviour Therapy

Abstract

The Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ) is a widely used measure of the worry characteristic of generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). The 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) is a new brief screening tool for GAD, which is being increasingly used in research and clinical practice. The present study sought to provide comparison data on the relative psychometric properties of these two scales. The data of 195 adults who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria for GAD and who participated in two randomised treatment controlled trials were used. Factor analyses, internal consistency, correlational analyses, responsiveness to change, and agreement between the scales based on indentified clinical cutoffs were conducted. Factor analyses confirmed a one-factor structure for the GAD-7 and a three-factor structure involving two method factors for the PSWQ. Both the GAD-7 and the PSWQ demonstrated adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: .79-.91 and .86-.91, respectively), and moderate correlations (r = .51-.71) were observed between the scales across the treatment time points. The scales exhibited small correlations with the Sheehan Disability Scale at pretreatment (GAD-7 r = .38; PSWQ r = .26), but moderate correlations at posttreatment and follow-up (r = .59-.79). Agreement between the scales was limited using various clinical cutoffs identified within the literature. Both measures were sensitive to change, although the GAD-7 appeared to be more sensitive and may, therefore, confer some advantages in clinical work.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/16506073.2011.582138

Cites

33 of 33 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
Dear, B. F., Titov, N., Sunderland, M., McMillan, D., Anderson, T., Lorian, C., & Robinson, E.
Affiliations
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne (AU)
  • University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Dear, Blake F.
Venue
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy
Published
2011-07-20
Volume
40
Issue
3
Pages
216-227
ISSN
  • 1650-6073 (ISSN-L)
  • 1651-2316
OpenAlex
W2017761739
Cited by
282
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
FWCI
13.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Australian Rotary Health
  • University of New South Wales
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
generalized anxiety disorder, GAD-7, Penn State Worry Questionnaire, worry, psychometric properties, scale comparison, treatment response, responsiveness to change, factor structure, internal consistency, Sheehan Disability Scale
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety Disorders, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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