Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T11:43:59.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The validity of three different versions of the general health questionnaire among general hospital inpatients

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

F. Friedrich
Affiliation:
Medical University of Vienna, Dept of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Vienna, Austria
R. Alexandrowicz
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, Department for Applied Psychology and Methods Research, University of Klagenfurt, Klagenfurt, Austria
N. Benda
Affiliation:
Medical University of Vienna, Dept of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Vienna, Austria
M. Krautgartner
Affiliation:
Medical University of Vienna, Dept of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Vienna, Austria
G. Cerny
Affiliation:
Medical University of Vienna, Dept of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Vienna, Austria
J. Wancata
Affiliation:
Medical University of Vienna, Dept of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Vienna, Austria

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective

Originally, the General Health Questionnaire (= GHQ) was designed to detect mental disorders among general medical outpatients and in community. The aim of the present survey is to compare the criterion validity indices of three different GHQ versions among general hospital inpatients when using different scoring methods.

Method

The GHQ-30 was filled in by inpatients prior to the research interview. For psychiatric case-identifiation the Clinical Interview Schedule was performed by three research psychiatrists.

Results

The final sample consisted of 993 inpatients. When comparing the three different GHQ-versions, no significant differences were found in OMR and ROC-AUC as well as in sensitivity (0,612–0,701) and specificity (0,601–0759). When comparing the four scoring methods no significant differences were found in sensitivity. By contrast, OMR and specificity showed better indices for the 20 item and 12 item GHQ versions when using the bimodal and modified Lickert scoring method. Further, the Lickert scoring method showed no significant differences to the other scoring methods for the GHQ-30, where as the modified Lickert and the bimodal method showed lower OMR and higher specificity compared to the chronic method.

Conclusion

Due to the results of this survey, the future use of the chronic scoring method for the GHQ has to be questioned when used for general hospital inpatients.

Type
P01-532
Copyright
Copyright © European Psychiatric Association2011
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.