The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Normative data for the HADS from a large non-clinical sample
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To provide normative data for the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS). DESIGN: Repeated measures and correlational. METHODS: The HADS was administered to a non-clinical sample, broadly representative of the general adult UK population (N = 1792) in terms of the distributions of age, gender and occupational status. Correlational analysis was used to determine the influence of demographic variables on HADS scores. RESULTS: Demographic variables had only very modest influences on HADS scores. The reliability of the HADS is acceptable; the Anxiety and Depression scales are moderately correlated (.53). Tables to convert raw scores to percentiles are presented for females and males. CONCLUSIONS: The present normative data allow clinicians to assess the rarity of a given HADS score, and thus provide a useful supplement to existing cut-off scores.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“The proportions of the current sample meeting the criteria for moderate-severe levels of symptoms for anxiety (n = 11, 10.1%) and depression (n = 8, 7.1%) were higher than those reported by Crawford et al. in their large, community, non-clinical sample of males (8% and 2%, respectively).”
From Psychological acceptance mediates the impact of the behaviour problems of children with intellectual disability on fathers' psychological adjustment. (2010) · cites this paper as Crawford et al. 2001
In the citing paper
“Scores of 11 or higher on each sub-scale of the HADS are recognized to suggest moderate to severe anxiety or depression (Crawford et al. 2001).”
From Psychological acceptance mediates the impact of the behaviour problems of children with intellectual disability on fathers' psychological adjustment. (2010) · cites this paper as Crawford et al. 2001
In the citing paper
“However, even in very large non-clinical samples, the distribution of scores on common mood questionnaires can still be positively skewed (Crawford et al ., 2001).”
From Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for post-stroke adjustment difficulties via telerehabilitation in a working-age man (2023) · cites this paper as Crawford et al ., 2001
In the citing paper
“Overall the baseline HADS-Total mean 19.20 (SD = 6.18) was high, as compared to a non-clinical Australian community sample mean 9.82 (SD = 5.98) (Crawford et al., 2001).”
From A mixed methods pilot and feasibility open trial of internet-delivered cognitive behaviour therapy (iCanADAPT Advanced) for people with advanced cancer with depression and/or anxiety (2021) · cites this paper as Crawford et al., 2001
In the citing paper
“a recommended cut-off score for clinical levels of depression suggested at 10/11 (Crawford, Henry, Crombie, & Taylor, 2001).”
From A mindfulness parent well-being course: evaluation of outcomes for parents of children with autism and related disabilities recruited through special schools (2018) · cites this paper as Crawford, Henry, Crombie, & Taylor, 2001
In the citing paper
“In relation to the small change in depression scores, the small effect may not necessarily be due to a lack of treatment effect, but possibly because of relatively moderate levels of depression presented by the current sample, with a pre-intervention mean scores of 6.75, and a recommended cut-off score for clinical levels of depression suggested at 10/11 (Crawford, Henry, Crombie, & Taylor, 2001).”
From A mindfulness parent well-being course: evaluation of outcomes for parents of children with autism and related disabilities recruited through special schools (2018) · cites this paper as Crawford, Henry, Crombie, & Taylor, 2001
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1348/0144665031752934 · Cited by 2,957
“Normative data are now available for all three scales in a form that is equivalent to that presented here for the PANAS (Crawford & Henry, 2003; Crawford, Henry, Crombie, & Taylor, 2001; Henry, Crawford, Bedford, Crombie, & Taylor, 2002); that is, they consist of percentile tables derived from large samples of the gen…”
MethodSelf-citationPallant, J., & Tennant, A. (2007) · British Journal of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1348/014466506x96931 · Cited by 996
Long-term complications of critical care
Desai, S. V., Law, T. J., & Needham, D. M. (2010) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0b013e3181fd66e5 · Cited by 892
“These prevalence findings are markedly higher than in the general population (7%–8%) (83, 84) and after myocardial infarction (14%) (85).”
BackgroundPsychometric comparison of PHQ-9 and HADS for measuring depression severity in primary care
Cameron, I. M., Crawford, J. R., Lawton, K., & Reid, I. C. (2008) · British Journal of General Practice · doi:10.3399/bjgp08x263794 · Cited by 590
Self-citationOlssøn, I., Mykletun, A., & Dahl, A. A. (2005) · BMC Psychiatry · doi:10.1186/1471-244x-5-46 · Cited by 580
“However, studies have shown that in non-clinical samples chronic somatic problems [16] and demographic variations [31] have only modest influence on the HADS scores.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Crawford, J. R., Henry, J. D., Crombie, C., & Taylor, E. P.
- Affiliations
- University of Aberdeen (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Crawford, J. R.
- Venue
- British Journal of Clinical Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 429-434
- ISSN
- 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8260
- OpenAlex
- W2014718757
- Cited by
- 815
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 50 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 61 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 56 · 2012: 59
- FWCI
- 8.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- British Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
- Keywords
- reference values, anxiety, depression, non-clinical population, scoring reliability, cut-off values
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Depression, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Reference Values, Reproducibility of Results
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
