Eliana Moreno1, Roger Muñoz-Navarro2, Leonardo Adrián Medrano3, César González-Blanch4, Paloma Ruiz-Rodríguez5, Joaquín T Limonero6, Luciana Sofía Moretti7, Antonio Cano-Vindel8, Juan A Moriana9. 1. Department of Psychology, Maimónides Institute for Research in Biomedicine of Cordoba-IMIBIC, Reina Sofía University Hospital, University of Córdoba, Av. Menéndez Pidal, s/n, 14004 Córdoba, Spain. Electronic address: ed2momoe@uco.es. 2. Department of Basic Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Valencia, Avd. Blasco Ibañez, 21, 46010, Valencia, Spain. Electronic address: roger.munoz@uv.es. 3. Faculty of Psychology, University Siglo 21, De los Latinos 8555, 5008 Córdoba, Argentina. Electronic address: Leonardo.Medrano@ues21.edu.ar. 4. Mental Health Centre, University Hospital "Marqués de Valdecilla"- IDIVAL, Av. Valdecilla 25, 39008 Santander, Cantabria, Spain. Electronic address: cesar.gonzalezblanch@scsalud.es. 5. Castilla La Nueva Primary Care Centre, Health Service of Madrid, Calle Teruel, 4, 28941 Fuenlabrada, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: pruizr@salud.madrid.org. 6. Department of Basic Psychology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Campus de la UAB, Plaça Cívica, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. Electronic address: joaquin.limonero@uab.cat. 7. Faculty of Psychology, University Siglo 21, De los Latinos 8555, 5008 Córdoba, Argentina. Electronic address: luciana.moretti@unc.edu.ar. 8. Department of Basic Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, Complutense University of Madrid, Campus de Somosaguas, s/n, 28223 Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: canovindel@psi.ucm.es. 9. Department of Psychology, Maimónides Institute for Research in Biomedicine of Cordoba-IMIBIC, Reina Sofía University Hospital, University of Córdoba, Av. Menéndez Pidal, s/n, 14004 Córdoba, Spain. Electronic address: jamoriana@uco.es.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7) is commonly used by clinicians and researchers to screen for anxiety disorders and to monitor anxiety symptoms in primary care. However, findings regarding its factor structure are mixed, with most studies reporting a best-fitting for a one-factor structure, whereas others indicate a two-factor model. To be valid for comparisons, the GAD-7 should measure the same latent construct with the same structure across groups and over time. We aimed to examine the best-fit factor structure model of the GAD-7 among primary care patients and to evaluate its measurement invariance. METHODS: A total of 1255 patients completed the computerized version of GAD-7 and a subsample of 238 cases was assessed at the 3-month follow-up. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed and analyses of multiple-group invariance were also conducted to determine the extent to which the factor structure was comparable across various sociodemographic groups and over time. RESULTS: The results showed that both a one- and two-factor structure (representing somatic and cognitive-affective components) were invariant across sociodemographic groups and over time. The two-factor structure provided the best model fit. LIMITATIONS: Results cannot be generalized to all primary care patients, as only patients whose general practitioners consider them to suffer emotional disorders were included. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the reliability and validity of the one- and two-factor model of the GAD-7, both for screening purposes and for monitoring response to treatment.
BACKGROUND: The Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7) is commonly used by clinicians and researchers to screen for anxiety disorders and to monitor anxiety symptoms in primary care. However, findings regarding its factor structure are mixed, with most studies reporting a best-fitting for a one-factor structure, whereas others indicate a two-factor model. To be valid for comparisons, the GAD-7 should measure the same latent construct with the same structure across groups and over time. We aimed to examine the best-fit factor structure model of the GAD-7 among primary care patients and to evaluate its measurement invariance. METHODS: A total of 1255 patients completed the computerized version of GAD-7 and a subsample of 238 cases was assessed at the 3-month follow-up. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed and analyses of multiple-group invariance were also conducted to determine the extent to which the factor structure was comparable across various sociodemographic groups and over time. RESULTS: The results showed that both a one- and two-factor structure (representing somatic and cognitive-affective components) were invariant across sociodemographic groups and over time. The two-factor structure provided the best model fit. LIMITATIONS: Results cannot be generalized to all primary care patients, as only patients whose general practitioners consider them to suffer emotional disorders were included. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the reliability and validity of the one- and two-factor model of the GAD-7, both for screening purposes and for monitoring response to treatment.
Authors: Julia Dratva; Annina Zysset; Nadine Schlatter; Agnes von Wyl; Marion Huber; Thomas Volken Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-10-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Mark Shevlin; Sarah Butter; Orla McBride; Jamie Murphy; Jilly Gibson-Miller; Todd K Hartman; Liat Levita; Liam Mason; Anton P Martinez; Ryan McKay; Thomas Va Stocks; Kate M Bennett; Philip Hyland; Frédérique Vallieres; Carmen Valiente; Carmelo Vazquez; Alba Contreras; Vanesa Peinado; Almudena Trucharte; Marco Bertamini; Anna Panzeri; Giovanni Bruno; Umberto Granziol; Giuseppe Mignemi; Andrea Spoto; Giulio Vidotto; Richard P Bentall Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2022-03-01 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Jeroen De Man; Pilvikki Absetz; Thirunavukkarasu Sathish; Allissa Desloge; Tilahun Haregu; Brian Oldenburg; Leslie C M Johnson; Kavumpurathu Raman Thankappan; Emily D Williams Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2021-05-13