BACKGROUND: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) rating scale is a commonly used questionnaire. Former studies have given inconsistent results as to the psychometric properties of the HAD scale. AIMS: To examine the psychometric properties of the HAD scale in a large population. METHOD: All inhabitants aged 20-89 years (n=92 100) were invited to take part in The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study, Norway. A total of 65 648 subjects participated, and only completed HAD scale forms (n=51 930) formed the basis for the psychometric examinations. RESULTS: Principal component analysis extracted two factors in the HAD scale that accounted for 57% of the variance. The anxiety and depression sub-scales shared 30% of the variance. Both subscales were found to be internally consistent, with values of Cronbach's coefficient (alpha) being 0.80 and 0.76, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from a large population, the basic psychometric properties of the HAD scale as a self-rating instrument should be considered as quite good in terms of factor structure, intercorrelation, homogeneity and internal consistency.
BACKGROUND: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression (HAD) rating scale is a commonly used questionnaire. Former studies have given inconsistent results as to the psychometric properties of the HAD scale. AIMS: To examine the psychometric properties of the HAD scale in a large population. METHOD: All inhabitants aged 20-89 years (n=92 100) were invited to take part in The Nord-Trøndelag Health Study, Norway. A total of 65 648 subjects participated, and only completed HAD scale forms (n=51 930) formed the basis for the psychometric examinations. RESULTS: Principal component analysis extracted two factors in the HAD scale that accounted for 57% of the variance. The anxiety and depression sub-scales shared 30% of the variance. Both subscales were found to be internally consistent, with values of Cronbach's coefficient (alpha) being 0.80 and 0.76, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on data from a large population, the basic psychometric properties of the HAD scale as a self-rating instrument should be considered as quite good in terms of factor structure, intercorrelation, homogeneity and internal consistency.
Authors: Hilde P A van der Aa; Mirke Hoeben; Linda Rainey; Ger H M B van Rens; Hilde L Vreeken; Ruth M A van Nispen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Mark D Eisner; Paul D Blanc; Edward H Yelin; Patricia P Katz; Gabriela Sanchez; Carlos Iribarren; Theodore A Omachi Journal: Thorax Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Anette Schrag; Paolo Barone; Richard G Brown; Albert F G Leentjens; William M McDonald; Sergio Starkstein; Daniel Weintraub; Werner Poewe; Olivier Rascol; Cristina Sampaio; Glenn T Stebbins; Christopher G Goetz Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 10.338
Authors: Lene Thorsen; Wenche Nystad; Hein Stigum; Olav Dahl; Olbjørn Klepp; Roy M Bremnes; Erik Wist; Sophie D Fosså Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alasdair G Rooney; Shanne McNamara; Mairi Mackinnon; Mary Fraser; Roy Rampling; Alan Carson; Robin Grant Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2012-12-09 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Talia R Weiss Wiesel; Christian J Nelson; William P Tew; Molly Hardt; Supriya Gupta Mohile; Cynthia Owusu; Heidi D Klepin; Cary P Gross; Ajeet Gajra; Stuart M Lichtman; Rupal Ramani; Vani Katheria; Laura Zavala; Arti Hurria Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2014-08-06 Impact factor: 3.894