| Literature DB >> 35675375 |
Mahir A Rahman1, Tahia Anan Dhira2, Abdur Razzaque Sarker1, Jeenat Mehareen3.
Abstract
This study investigated the reliability and factorial validity of Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in the context of university students in Bangladesh. The research aimed to assess whether the original one-dimensional model or a model containing both somatic and cognitive-emotional factors is appropriate in the case of a sample of university students. A repeated cross-sectional survey design based on convenience sampling was used to collect data from 677 university students from both public and private universities. The factor structure of the PHQ-9 was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Measurement invariances were assessed across gender, type of university, level of education and victim of domestic violence. Its convergent validity was determined by investigating its correlations with Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety-Depression Scale (PHQ-ADS). Results showed excellent reliability of PHQ-9 as measured by both Cronbach's α and McDonald's ω. CFA suggested that a modified one-factor model where the error variances between item-3 ('sleeping difficulties') and item-6 ('feeling as a failure'), item-6 and item-9 ('suicidal thoughts'), item-4 ('feeling tired') and item-9, item-3 and item-9 were allowed to covary is appropriate for the sample. This model provided high values of comparative fit index (CFI), goodness of fit index (GFI), and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), low value of standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) and a non-significant root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) as well as a high Factor Determinacy Score Coefficient. Correlation between PHQ-9 and GAD-7 was 0.751 and 0.934 between PHQ-9 and PHQ-ADS. Finally, the model is strictly invariant across gender and university type. Overall, the study provided support for modified unidimensional structure for PHQ-9 and showed high internal consistency along with good convergent validity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35675375 PMCID: PMC9176811 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269634
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Socio-demographic characteristics.
| Variables | Categories | N | % in the sample |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 18–22 years | 550 | 81.24 |
| 23–27 years | 127 | 18.76 | |
|
| Male | 348 | 51.40 |
| Female | 329 | 48.60 | |
|
| First year | 309 | 45.64 |
| Second year | 98 | 14.48 | |
| Third year | 131 | 19.35 | |
| Fourth year | 95 | 14.03 | |
| Masters | 44 | 6.50 | |
|
| Public University | 440 | 65.19 |
| Private University | 235 | 34.81 | |
|
| Married | 8 | 1.19 |
| Single | 661 | 97.93 | |
| Others | 6 | 0.89 | |
|
| Yes | 102 | 15.07 |
| No | 575 | 84.93 | |
|
| <25,000 BDT | 154 | 22.75 |
| 25,000–54,999 BDT | 250 | 36.93 | |
| 55,000–99,999 BDT | 174 | 25.70 | |
| > = 1,00,000 BDT | 99 | 14.62 | |
|
| Government Service Holder | 189 | 27.92 |
| Agricultural wage labor | 35 | 5.17 | |
| Organized Trade/Business | 173 | 25.55 | |
| Pension/ Rent | 87 | 12.85 | |
| Private Service Holder | 181 | 26.74 | |
| Others | 12 | 1.77 | |
|
| No | 536 | 79.17 |
| Yes | 141 | 20.83 | |
|
| < = 4 members | 340 | 50.22 |
| >4 members | 337 | 49.78 | |
|
| Alone | 191 | 28.21 |
| With family | 409 | 60.41 | |
| With friends | 66 | 9.75 | |
| With pets | 11 | 1.62 | |
|
| Yes | 96 | 14.18 |
| No | 581 | 85.82 | |
|
| Yes | 65 | 67.71 |
| No | 31 | 32.29 |
Characteristics of items and total PHQ-9 scale.
| PHQ-9 Items | Mean (95% CI) | SD | Factor Loadings | Cronbach’s α | McDonald’s ω |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Little interest or pleasure in doing things? | 1.27 (1.19–1.34) | 0.96 | 0.276 | 0.824 | 0.86 |
| 2. Feeling down, depressed, or hopeless? | 1.44 (1.36–1.53) | 1.08 | 0.749 | ||
| 3. Trouble falling or staying asleep, or sleeping too much? | 1.58 (1.50–1.67) | 1.13 | 0.653 | ||
| 4. Feeling tired or having little energy? | 1.39 (1.31–1.47) | 1.06 | 0.743 | ||
| 5. Poor appetite or overeating? | 1.03 (0.95–1.11) | 1.08 | 0.673 | ||
| 6. Feeling bad about yourself—or that you are a failure or have let yourself or your family down? | 1.31(1.22–1.40) | 1.16 | 0.730 | ||
| 7. Trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television? | 1.28 (1.19–1.37) | 1.16 | 0.663 | ||
| 8. Moving or speaking so slowly that other people could have noticed? | 0.78 (0.71–0.85) | 0.99 | 0.660 | ||
| 9. Thoughts that you would be better off dead, or of hurting yourself in some way? | 0.64 (0.57–0.72) | 0.99 | 0.588 | ||
| PHQ-9 Total Score | 10.74 (10.27–11.20) | 6.20 | ___ |
CI = Confidence Interval; SD = Standard Deviation.
Goodness of fit indices for the PHQ-9 item factor models (N = 677).
| Model | k |
| df | CFI | GFI | TLI | RMSEA (90% CI) | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | 9 | 153.823 | 27 | 0.924 | 0.910 | 0.898 | 0.083 | 0.046 |
| Model 2 | 9 | 113.820 | 26 | 0.947 | 0.933 | 0.927 | 0.071 | 0.040 |
| Model 3 | 9 | 108.974 | 26 | 0.950 | 0.936 | 0.931 | 0.069 | 0.040 |
| Model 4 | 9 | 74.740 | 23 | 0.969 | 0.956 | 0.951 | 0.058 (0.043–0.073) | 0.033 |
***p<0.001;
**p<0.05;
*p< 0.1
k = number of items; df = degrees of freedom; CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness of fit index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; RMSEA = root mean squared error of approximation; SRMR = standardized root mean residual
Model 1: Originally validated one- factor model
Model 2: Two- factor model of Krause et al. (2008) with item 3, 4 and 5 loaded on one somatic factor and the other six items loaded on an affective factor
Model 3: Two- factor model of Richardson and Richard with item 3,4,5,7,8 loaded on the somatic factor and the others on affective factor
Model 4: Modified one-factor model.
Fig 1Confirmatory factor analysis path diagram for modified one-factor model of PHQ-9 factors.
(All factor loadings and error covariances were significant at p<0.001).
Association of PHQ-9 score with socio-demographic characteristics (N = 677).
| Variables | Categories | PHQ-9 score, Mean (SD) | t/F | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Male | 9.61 (6.01) | 4.922 |
|
| Female | 11.92 (6.17) | |||
|
| Public University | 11.58 (6.25) | -5.068 |
|
| Private University | 9.09 (5.74) | |||
|
| First year | 9.74 (5.95) | 5.46 |
|
| Second year | 10.48 (6.12) | |||
| Third year | 12.38 (6.47) | |||
| Fourth year | 11.99 (6.41) | |||
| Masters | 10.68 (5.45) | |||
|
| Yes | 12.82 (6.71) | -3.594 |
|
| No | 10.39 (6.04) |
*Group differences were performed using t test and analysis of variance. Significant group differences are printed in bold (P <0.05)
SD = Standard Deviation.