Helge Molde1, Inger Hilde Nordhus1,2, Torbjørn Torsheim3, Knut Engedal4, Anette Bakkane Bendixen4, Gerard J Byrne5, María Márquez-González6, Andres Losada7, Lei Feng8, Elisabeth Kuan Tai Ow8, Kullaya Pisitsungkagarn9, Nattasuda Taephant9, Somboon Jarukasemthawee9, Alexandra Champagne10, Philippe Landreville10, Patrick Gosselin11, Oscar Ribeiro12, Gretchen J Diefenbach13, Karen Blank13, Sherry A Beaudreau14, Jerson Laks15, Narahyana Bom de Araújo15, Rochele Paz Fonseca16, Renata Kochhann16, Analuiza Camozzato17, Rob H S van den Brink18, Mario Fluiter19, Paul Naarding20, Loeki P R M Pelzers21, Astrid Lugtenburg22, Richard C Oude Voshaar18, Nancy A Pachana23. 1. Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Bergen, Norway. 2. Department of Behavioural Sciences in Medicine, University of Oslo, Norway. 3. Department of Psychosocial Science, University of Bergen, Norway. 4. Department of Geriatric Psychiatry, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway and Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Aging and Health, Vestfold Hospital Trust, Toensberg, Norway. 5. School of Clinical Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. 6. Biological and Health Psychology Department, Faculty of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain. 7. Department of Medicine, Clinical Psychology Area, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain. 8. Department of Psychological Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 9. Faculty of Psychology, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand. 10. School of Psychology, Laval University, Quebec, Canada. 11. Department of Psychology, Université de Sherbrooke, Canada. 12. Center for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Department of Education and Psychology, Aveiro University, Portugal. 13. Anxiety Disorders Center, Institute of Living, Hartford, Connecticut. 14. Sierra Pacific Mental Illness Research Education and Clinical Center, VA Palo Alto Health Care System and Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University of Medicine, Palo Alto, California. 15. Institute of Psychiatry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 16. Graduate Program in Psychology, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Brazil. 17. Universidade Federal de Ciências da Saúde de Porto Alegre UFCSPA, Brazil. 18. Rob Giel Research center (RGOc), University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands. 19. Mental Health Center GGZ Noord-Holland Noord, Heerhugowaard, The Netherlands. 20. GGNet Mental Health, Division of Old Age Psychiatry, Warnsveld & Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. 21. Mental Health Center GGZ Centraal, Ermelo, The Netherlands. 22. Mental Health Center GGZ Drenthe, Assen, The Netherlands. 23. School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Assessing late-life anxiety using an instrument with sound psychometric properties including cross-cultural invariance is essential for cross-national aging research and clinical assessment. To date, no cross-national research studies have examined the psychometric properties of the frequently used Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (GAI) in depth. METHOD: Using data from 3,731 older adults from 10 national samples (Australia, Brazil, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Singapore, Thailand, and United States), this study used bifactor modeling to analyze the dimensionality of the GAI. We evaluated the "fitness" of individual items based on the explained common variance for each item across all nations. In addition, a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis was applied, testing for measurement invariance across the samples. RESULTS: Across samples, the presence of a strong G factor provides support that a general factor is of primary importance, rather than subfactors. That is, the data support a primarily unidimensional representation of the GAI, still acknowledging the presence of multidimensional factors. A GAI score in one of the countries would be directly comparable to a GAI score in any of the other countries tested, perhaps with the exception of Singapore. DISCUSSION: Although several items demonstrated relatively weak common variance with the general factor, the unidimensional structure remained strong even with these items retained. Thus, it is recommended that the GAI be administered using all items.
OBJECTIVES: Assessing late-life anxiety using an instrument with sound psychometric properties including cross-cultural invariance is essential for cross-national aging research and clinical assessment. To date, no cross-national research studies have examined the psychometric properties of the frequently used Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (GAI) in depth. METHOD: Using data from 3,731 older adults from 10 national samples (Australia, Brazil, Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Singapore, Thailand, and United States), this study used bifactor modeling to analyze the dimensionality of the GAI. We evaluated the "fitness" of individual items based on the explained common variance for each item across all nations. In addition, a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis was applied, testing for measurement invariance across the samples. RESULTS: Across samples, the presence of a strong G factor provides support that a general factor is of primary importance, rather than subfactors. That is, the data support a primarily unidimensional representation of the GAI, still acknowledging the presence of multidimensional factors. A GAI score in one of the countries would be directly comparable to a GAI score in any of the other countries tested, perhaps with the exception of Singapore. DISCUSSION: Although several items demonstrated relatively weak common variance with the general factor, the unidimensional structure remained strong even with these items retained. Thus, it is recommended that the GAI be administered using all items.
Authors: María Márquez-González; Andrés Losada; Virginia Fernández-Fernández; Nancy A Pachana Journal: Int Psychogeriatr Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 3.878
Authors: Alexandra Champagne; Philippe Landreville; Patrick Gosselin; Pierre-Hugues Carmichael Journal: Aging Ment Health Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 3.658