Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Chronicity and the General Health Questionnaire

Goodchild, M. E., Duncan-Jones, Paul·1985·British Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Summary: We propose a new scoring for Goldberg's (1972) General Health Questionnaire. We argue that the response ‘no more than usual’, to an item describing pathology, should be treated as an indicator of chronic illness rather than of good health, and we score these responses accordingly. We give evidence that this set of responses is associated with other measures of neurotic illness, and that the revised scoring provides a better prediction of caseness than the conventional scoring. The revised scoring is more strongly associated with trait neuroticism, and is more stable in repeated measurement. It is recommended in preference to the conventional scoring for most research and epidemiological purposes.

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 · 10.1192/bjp.146.1.55

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 289

Metadata

Authors
Goodchild, M. E., & Duncan-Jones, P.
Venue
British Journal of Psychiatry
Published
1985-01
Volume
146
Issue
1
Pages
55-61
ISSN
  • 0007-1250 (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-1465
OpenAlex
W2148500695
Cited by
289
References
1
FWCI
11.22
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

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.