| Literature DB >> 28320339 |
Gyan Chandra Kashyap1, Shri Kant Singh2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to test the reliability, validity and factor structure of GHQ-12 questionnaire on male tannery workers of India. We have tested three different factor models of the GHQ-12.Entities:
Keywords: Confirmatory factor analysis; Cronbach’s alpha; GHQ-12; Internal consistency; Reliability; Tannery; Validity
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28320339 PMCID: PMC5360057 DOI: 10.1186/s12888-017-1253-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Psychiatry ISSN: 1471-244X Impact factor: 3.630
Socio-economic and work-related characteristics of tannery workers in Kanpur city, India, 2015
| Variables | Tannery workers (%) | (Numbers, N) |
|---|---|---|
| Age in yearsa | 38.55 ± 1.42 | 286 |
| Education | ||
| Illiterate | 66.32 | 189 |
| Up to primary | 13.33 | 38 |
| Middle school | 8.77 | 25 |
| High school & above | 11.58 | 33 |
| Work experience in current tannerya | 10.10 ± 0.92 | 285 |
| Work experience in previous tannerya | 7.95 ± 1.25 | 99 |
| Job status | ||
| Temporary job (daily wages) | 89.12 | 254 |
| Permanent job | 10.88 | 31 |
| Type of work | ||
| Beam house work | 8.42 | 24 |
| Wet finishing work | 24.21 | 69 |
| Dry finishing work | 50.53 | 144 |
| Miscellaneous work | 16.84 | 48 |
| Average working hours in daya | 9.54 ± 0.19 | 285 |
| Average working days in a weeka | 6.50 ± 0.06 | 285 |
| Religion | ||
| Hindu | 33.92 | 97 |
| Muslim | 66.08 | 189 |
| Caste | ||
| SC/ST | 65.38 | 187 |
| Other backward classes | 18.53 | 53 |
| Others | 5.59 | 16 |
| Don’t know | 10.49 | 30 |
| Exposure to the media | ||
| No exposure | 23.8 | 66 |
| Any exposure | 76.92 | 220 |
aMean ± SD
Correlations between items in GHQ-12 scale, Inter-item reliability
| Item 1 | Item 2 | Item 3 | Item 4 | Item 5 | Item 6 | Item 7 | Item 8 | Item 9 | Item 10 | Item 11 | Item 12 | Inter-item Reliabilitya | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Item 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| Item 2 | 0.46 | 1.00 | 0.497 | ||||||||||
| Item 3 | 0.73 | 0.50 | 1.00 | 0.523 | |||||||||
| Item 4 | 0.64 | 0.51 | 0.73 | 1.00 | 0.494 | ||||||||
| Item 5 | 0.49 | 0.60 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 1.00 | 0.506 | |||||||
| Item 6 | -0.70 | -0.39 | -0.70 | -0.56 | -0.38 | 1.00 | 0.524 | ||||||
| Item 7 | 0.69 | 0.43 | 0.61 | 0.59 | 0.40 | -0.60 | 1.00 | 0.510 | |||||
| Item 8 | 0.51 | 0.41 | 0.50 | 0.62 | 0.37 | -0.49 | 0.56 | 1.00 | 0.503 | ||||
| Item 9 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.54 | -0.50 | 0.44 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 0.530 | |||
| Item 10 | 0.51 | 0.46 | 0.53 | 0.50 | 0.52 | -0.48 | 0.48 | 0.29 | 0.64 | 1.00 | 0.505 | ||
| Item 11 | 0.60 | 0.61 | 0.55 | 0.53 | 0.59 | -0.47 | 0.55 | 0.39 | 0.69 | 0.66 | 1.00 | 0.512 | |
| Item 12 | 0.71 | 0.48 | 0.63 | 0.56 | 0.44 | -0.62 | 0.69 | 0.41 | 0.57 | 0.43 | 0.53 | 1.00 | 0.504 |
aAverage inter-item reliability: 0.50; Cronbach’s α coefficient: 0.93
Goodness-of-fit of three confirmatory factor analysis models (N = 286)
| Statistics | Model-I | Model-II | Model-III |
|---|---|---|---|
| RMSEA | 0.127 | 0.171 | 0.091 |
| AIC | 7552.22 | 3786.02 | 4008.18 |
| BIC | 7687.23 | 3851.70 | 4073.86 |
| CFI | 0.892 | 0.930 | 0.973 |
| TLI | 0.865 | 0.884 | 0.955 |
| SRMR | 0.061 | 0.420 | 0.031 |
RMSEA Root mean squared error of approximation, AIC Akaike’s information criterion, BIC Bayesian information criterion, CFI Comparative fit index, TLI Tucker-Lewis index, SRMR Standardized root mean squared residual
Fig. 1Standardized factor loadings and between-factor correlations between model I and model II
Fig. 2Standardized factor loadings and between-factor correlations. Boxes represent GHQ-12 items: one-way and two-way arrows indicate factor loadings between-factor correlations, respectively