The current study evaluated the Kiswahili version of General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) in a Kenyan context comprising of women exposed to gender-based violence. Participants were randomly drawn from community sampling using household screening methods in peri-urban areas in Nairobi. A total of 1,394 participants with varying levels of literacy (years of education: mean [M] = 9.42; standard deviation [SD] = 3.73) and aged between 18 and 89 years were recruited for the study. The observed factor structure of the GHQ-12 was evaluated using six most tested models querying the dimensionality of the instrument insofar as the impacts of positive and negative wording effects in driving multidimensionality. Results from the confirmatory factor analysis supported a bifactor model, consisting of a general distress factor and two separate factors representing common variance due to the positive and negative wording of items. Overall, the findings support the use of the Kiswahili version of the GHQ-12 as a unidimensional construct with method-specific variance owing to wording effects. Importantly, GHQ-12 responses from a sample of Kenyan women with relatively low levels of literacy are congruent with the factor structure observed in other cross-cultural settings in low- and-middle-income countries.

Background: Two-phase diagnostic surveys are popular in psychiatric epidemiology. The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) are commonly used to screen in older and younger populations, respectively.

Method: In Phase I, in this Brazilian population-based study, we screened 392 participants aged ≥ 75 years. In Phase II, half of those scoring ≥ 11 in the GDS and ≥ 4 in the GHQ and 20% of others were selected for detailed evaluation with ICD-10 diagnoses assessed by the Schedules for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry (SCAN) (n = 126).

Results: Internal consistencies were good for all scales. At the optimal cut-off points GDS-30 (14/15) yielded 73% sensitivity and 65% specificity, while classical GHQ (4/5), Likert (15/16) and c-GHQ (5/6) yielded 66–75% sensitivity and 57–62% specificity. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis against SCAN indicated only moderate screening potential [area under the ROC curve (AUROC): GDS = 0.76; classical GHQ = 0.74; Likert = 0.76; c-GHQ = 0.73], with no statistically significant differences. All measures were biased by disability and self-reported health.

Conclusions: In this study, neither screen was sufficiently predictive of SCAN ICD-10 diagnosis to recommend their use in two-phase surveys. Despite its theoretical advantages, the GDS-30 performed no better than the GHQ-12, and was biased in similar ways.