| Literature DB >> 23275680 |
George B Ploubidis1, Rosemary A Abbott, Felicia A Huppert, Diana Kuh, Michael E J Wadsworth, Tim J Croudace.
Abstract
The General Health Questionnaire is widely used to measure the health status of individuals. Most studies have focused on traditional score values for one or more dimensions of psychopathology. We introduce a new analysis model that is person-centred and uses a latent structure approach to group individuals by a discrete latent variable. Data were drawn from a midlife (age 53) follow up of a national birth cohort study (n = 3035). For both men and women, three groups (latent classes) were sufficient to summarise individuals' reports of recent changes in social functioning. The groups differed in the number and nature of the reported changes. Furthermore, they were shown to differ in terms of: (1) reported general health, (2) in mean scores on the conventional GHQ factors and (3) in several other variables external to the GHQ (happiness in job, ability to express feelings and self-confidence). Latent Class Analysis of positively worded GHQ items defined groups who differ in perceptions of recent positive changes in social functioning. These groups extend the value of individual health profiles afforded by the GHQ by using distinctions between categories in the first and second responses that are usually combined.Entities:
Year: 2007 PMID: 23275680 PMCID: PMC3504660 DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.07.010
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pers Individ Dif ISSN: 0191-8869
Latent class analysis results
| LL | L2 | BIC(L2) | AIC(L2) | ssaBIC | CAIC | df | Monte Carlo S.E. | Classification error | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1: Single class | H1C | −2720.3 | 859.4 | 445.3 | 745.4 | 5445.7 | 389.5 | 57 | .0000 | .0000 | .000 |
| Model 2: Two classes | H2C | −2343.2 | 105.1 | −258.1 | 5.1 | 4719.6 | −307.4 | 50 | .0001 | .0001 | .023 |
| Model 3: Three classes | H3C | −2321.5 | 61.7 | −250.7 | −24.3 | 4704.4 | −293.4 | 43 | .0619 | .0024 | .113 |
| Model 1: Single class | H1C | −2911.1 | 935.5 | 519.0 | 821.5 | 5793.3 | 456.1 | 57 | .0000 | .0000 | .000 |
| Model 2: Two classes | H2C | −2514.4 | 142.1 | −223.2 | 42.1 | 5037.4 | −270.6 | 50 | .0000 | .0000 | .036 |
| Model 3: Three classes | H3C | −2469.1 | 51.4 | −262.8 | −34.6 | 4975.1 | −303.6 | 43 | .2888 | .0028 | .069 |
Abbreviations: AIC: Akaike Information Criterion; BIC: Bayesian Information Criterion; ssaBIC: sample size adjusted BIC; CAIC: consistent AIC.
Bootstrap p-values from 10,000 simulations.
Prevalence estimates and class-specific response probabilities
| Men | Women | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class AM | Class BM | Class CM | Class AW | Class BW | Class CW | |
| Prevalence: Class size % | 74.5% | 20.5% | 5.0% | 78.6% | 14.2% | 7.2% |
| Label | “None (AM)” | “Some (BM)” | “All (CM)” | “None (AW)” | “Some (BW)” | “All (CW)” |
| GHQ10 “busy and occupied” | 0.11 | 0.10 | ||||
| GHQ12 “doing things well” | 0.01 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.05 | ||
| GHQ13 “satisfied with tasks” | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.01 | |||
| GHQ14 “useful part in things” | 0.01 | 0.01 | ||||
| GHQ15 “decisions things” | 0.01 | 0.02 | ||||
| GHQ17 “enjoy activities” | 0.02 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 0.19 | ||
Italic = 0.2 < p < 0.4.
Bold = 0.4 < p < 1.00.
Fig. 1Men participants’ latent class means of GHQ28 factors. (Factor scores (y-axis) estimated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis for binary [0–0–1–1] data.)
Fig. 2Women participants’ latent class means of GHQ28 factors. (Factor scores (y-axis) estimated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis for binary [0–0–1–1] data.)
Latent classes validation and corresponding Wald tests: men
| AM | BM | CM | Wald | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Same/less/much less than usual | 1305 | 97% | 84% | 61% | 60.1 | |
| More than usual | 117 | 3% | 16% | 39% | ||
| Happy | 202 | 83% | 88% | 97% | 6.6 | |
| Unhappy | 1207 | 17% | 12% | 3% | ||
| No | 1265 | 9% | 17% | 5% | 6.5 | |
| Yes | 140 | 91% | 83% | 95% | ||
Latent classes validation and corresponding Wald tests: women
| AW | BW | CW | Wald | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Same/much less than usual/ | 1311 | 94% | 75% | 64% | 74.5 | |
| More than usual | 168 | 6% | 25% | 36% | ||
| Positive change | 244 | 15% | 38% | 59% | 59.8 | |
| No change | 688 | 67% | 54% | 34% | ||
| Negative change | 172 | 18% | 8% | 7% | ||
| Positive change | 212 | 14% | 34% | 46% | 48.4 | |
| No change | 636 | 62% | 42% | 38% | ||
| Negative change | 256 | 24% | 24% | 16% | ||
| Happy | 1296 | 88% | 93% | 96% | 5.1 | |
| Unhappy | 146 | 12% | 7% | 4% | ||
| No | 1273 | 14% | 16% | 12% | 0.6 | NS |
| Yes | 189 | 86% | 84% | 88% | ||
NS – non significant.
Items from the Women Health Survey.