CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 158Psychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research Topics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The factor structure of the twelve item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12): the result of negative phrasing?

Open access
Hankins, Matthew·2008·Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health
DOI 10.1186/1745-0179-4-10PMC PMC2373289
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) is used routinely as a unidimensional measure of psychological morbidity. Many factor-analytic studies have reported that the GHQ-12 has two or three dimensions, threatening its validity. It is possible that these 'dimensions' are the result of the wording of the GHQ-12, namely its division into positively phrased (PP) and negatively phrased (NP) statements about mood states. Such 'method effects' introduce response bias which should be taken into account when deriving and interpreting factors. METHODS: GHQ-12 data were obtained from the 2004 cohort of the Health Survey for England (N = 3705). Following exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the goodness of fit indices of one, two and three factor models were compared with those of a unidimensional model specifying response bias on the NP items, using structural equation modelling (SEM). The hypotheses were (1) the variance of the responses would be significantly higher for NP items than for PP items because of response bias, and (2) that the modelling of response bias would provide the best fit for the data. RESULTS: Consistent with previous reports, EFA suggested a two-factor solution dividing the items into NP and PP items. The variance of responses to the NP items was substantially and significantly higher than for the PP items. The model incorporating response bias was the best fit for the data on all indices (RMSEA = 0.068, 90%CL = 0.064, 0.073). Analysis of the frequency of responses suggests that the response bias derives from the ambiguity of the response options for the absence of negative mood states. CONCLUSION: The data are consistent with the GHQ-12 being a unidimensional scale with a substantial degree of response bias for the negatively phrased items. Studies that report the GHQ-12 as multidimensional without taking this response bias into account risk interpreting the artefactual factor structure as denoting 'real' constructs, committing the methodological error of reification. Although the GHQ-12 seems unidimensional as intended, the presence of such a large response bias should be taken into account in the analysis of GHQ-12 data.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1745-0179-4-10

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Model specification (models 1 to 4).
Figure 1 Model specification (models 1 to 4).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Item variances (PP items p1 to p6; NP items n1 to n6).
Figure 2 Item variances (PP items p1 to p6; NP items n1 to n6).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Frequency histograms of PP item responses (items p1 to p6).
Figure 3 Frequency histograms of PP item responses (items p1 to p6).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Frequency histograms of NP item responses (items n1 to n6).
Figure 4 Frequency histograms of NP item responses (items n1 to n6).CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

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

Show all 29 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–156 of 156

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hankins, M.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Hankins, Matthew
ORCID
Hankins, Matthew
Venue
Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health
Publisher
Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Published
2008
Volume
4
Issue
1
Pages
10
ISSN
1745-0179 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/1745-0179-4-10
PMC
PMC2373289
OpenAlex
W2061941598
Cited by
158
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 13
FWCI
7.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Clinical Practice and Epidemiology in Mental Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
GHQ-12, factor structure, response bias, method effects, psychological morbidity, unidimensionality, reification, mood states, questionnaire wording, Health Survey for England

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