Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Rasch-models to compare the 30-, 20-, and 12-items version of the general health questionnaire taking four recoding schemes into account

Ein Vergleich der 30-, 20- und 12-Item-Version des General Health Questionnaire unter Berücksichtigung von vier verschiedenen Recodierungen – eine Analyse mit Rasch-Modellen

  • original article
  • Published:
neuropsychiatrie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Background

The present study compares the 30-, 20-, and 12-items versions of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) in the original coding and four different recoding schemes (Bimodal, Chronic, Modified Likert and a newly proposed Modified Chronic) with respect to their psychometric qualities.

Methods

The dichotomized versions (i.e. Bimodal, Chronic and Modified Chronic) were evaluated with the Rasch-Model and the polytomous original version and the Modified Likert version were evaluated with the Partial Credit Model.

Results

In general, the versions under consideration showed agreement with the model assumption. However, the recoded versions exhibited some deficits with respect to the Outfit index.

Conclusions

Because of the item deficits and for theoretical reasons we argue in favor of using the any of the three length versions with the original four-categorical coding scheme. Nevertheless, any of the versions appears apt for clinical use from a psychometric perspective.

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Die vorliegende Studie hatte zum Ziel, die 30-, 20- und 12-Item-Versionen des General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) und vier verschiedene Rekodierungen (Bimodal, Chronic, Modified Likert und eine erstmals vorgeschlagene Modified Chronic) bezüglich psychometrischer Ansprüche zu vergleichen.

Methodik

Die dichtomisierten Versionen (Bimodal, Chronic and Modified Chronic) wurden mittels Rasch- Modell und die polytome Originalversion sowie die Modified Likert Version mittels Partial Credit Modell untersucht.

Ergebnisse

Insgesamt zeigten die untersuchten Versionen weitgehende Übereinstimmungen mit den Modellannahmen. Nichtsdestotrotz wiesen die rekodierten Versionen Defizite bezüglich des Outfit Index auf.

Schlussfolgerungen

Aufgrund der Item-Defizite und aus theoretischen Überlegungen argumentieren wir für die Verwendung der originalen 4-kategoriellen Kodierung für alle drei Versionen des GHQ, jedoch ist jede der Versionen aus psychometrischer Sicht für den klinischen Gebrauch geeignet.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1a
Fig. 2a
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Goldberg DP. The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire. NY: Oxford University Press; 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Goldberg DP, Cooper B, Eastwood MR, Kedward HB, Shepher M. A standardized psychiatric interview for use in community surveys. Br J Prevent Soc Med. 1970;24:18–23.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jacob K, Brugha D, Mann A. The validation of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire among ethnic Indian women living in the United Kingdom. Psychol Med. 1997;27:1215–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Schmitz N, Kruse J, Heckrath C, Alberti L, Tress W. Diagnosing mental disorders in primary care: the Genreal Health Questionnaire (GHQ) and the Symptom Checklist (SCL-90-R) as screening instruments. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1999;34:360–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Malt UF. The validity of the General Health Questionnaire in a sample of accidentally injured adults. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1989;80:103–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Goldberg PD, Williams P. A user’s guide to the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER-Nelson; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Andrich D, van Schoubroeck L. The General Health Questionnaire: a psychometric analysis using latent trait theory. Psychol Med. 1989;19:469–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Smith AB, Fallowfield LJ, Stark DP, Velikova G, Jenkins V. A, Rasch and confirmatory factor analysis of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)—12. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:45.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Delgado-Gomez D, Lopez-Castroman J, de Leon-Martinez V, Baca-Garcia E, Cabanas-Arrate ML, Aguado D. Psychometrical assessment and item analysis of the general health questionnaire in victims of terrorism. Psychol Assess. 2013;25:279–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Samejima F. Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monogr Suppl 34. 1969.

  11. Goodchild ME, Duncan-Jones P. Chronicity and the General Health Questionnaire. Br J Psychiatry. 1985;146:55–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jansen PGW, Roskam EE. Latent trait models and dichotomization of graded responses. Psychometrika. 1986;51:69–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Roskam EE, Jansen PGW. Conditions for Rasch-dichotomizability of the unidimensional polytomous Rasch model. Psychometrika. 1989;54:317–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Andrich D. Models for measurement, precision, and the nondichotomization of graded responses. Psychometrika. 1995a;60:7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Andrich D. Further remarks on nondichotomization of graded responses. Psychometrika. 1995b;60:37–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Friedrich F, Alexandrowicz R, Benda N, Cerny G, Wancata J. The criterion validity of different versions of the General Health Questionnaire among non-psychiaric inpatients. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2011;46:635–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Stevens SS. On the theory of scales of measurement. Science. 1946;103:677–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danmarks Pædagogiske Institut; 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Rasch G. An individualistic approach to item analysis. In: Lazarsfeld PF, Henry NW, editors. Readings in mathematical social science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 1966. pp 89–107.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika. 1982;47:149–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Baker FB, Kim S-H. Item response theory: parameter estimation techniques. 2nd revision, revised and expanded. NY: Marcel Dekker; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Mislevy RJ. Randomization-based inference about latent variables from complex samples. Psychometrika. 1991;56:177–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Warm TA. Weighted likelihood estimation of ability in item response theory. Psychometrika. 1989;54:427–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wu ML, Wilson MR. ConQuest: multi-aspect test software [Software Handbook]. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Christensen KB, Kreiner S, Mesbah M, editors. Rasch models in health. Hoboken: Wiley; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Engelhard G. Invariant measurement. Using Rasch models in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. NY: Routledge; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fischer GH, Molenaar IW, Models R. Foundations, recent developments, and applications. NY: Springer; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rocha NS, Chachamocvich E, Almeida Fleck MP, Tennant A. An introduction to Rasch analysis for psychiatric practice and research. J Psychiatric Res. 2013;47:141–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Glas CAW, Verhelst ND. Testing the Rasch model. In: Fischer GH, Molenaar IW, editors. Rasch models. Foundations, recent developments, and applications. NY: Springer; 1995. pp. 69–95.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Andersen EB. A goodness of fit test for the Rasch model. Psychometrika. 1973;38:123–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Glas CAW. Differential item functioning depending on general covariates. In: Boomsma A, van Duijn MAJ, Snijders TAB, editors. Essays on item response theory. NY: Springer; 2001. pp. 131–48.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Draxler C. Sample size determination for Rasch model tests. Psychometrika. 2010;75:708–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Draxler C, Alexandrowicz RW. (in press). Sample size determination within the scope of conditional maximum likelihood estimation with special focus on testing the Rasch model. Psychometrika.

  34. Christensen KB, Bjørner JB, Kreiner S, Petersen JH. Testing unidimensionality in polytomous Rasch models. Psychometrika. 2002;67:563–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Smith AB, Rush R, Fallowfield LJ, Velikova G, Sharpe M. Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Med Res Method. 2008. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-33.

    Google Scholar 

  36. R Core Team editor. R. A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014. http://www.R-project.org.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Alexandrowicz RW. R in 10 Schritten. Einführung in die statistische Programmierumgebung. Wien: Facultas/UTB; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mair P, Hatzinger R, Maier MJ. eRm: Extended Rasch modeling. R package version 0.15–1. 2012. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=eRm. Accessed 21 Sep. 2015.

  39. Wiedermann WT, Alexandrowicz RW. A plea for the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney-Test: further considerations on Rasch & Guiard́s ‘The robustness of parametric statistical methods’. Psychology. Science. 2007;49:2–12.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Alexandrowicz RW, Fritzsche S, Keller F. Die Anwendbarkeit des BDI-II in klinischen und nichtklinischen Populationen aus psychometrischer Sicht. Eine vergleichende Analyse mit dem Rasch-Modell. Neuropsychiatrie. 2014;28:63–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are indebted to Marco Maier for invaluable programming assistance in calculating the required person parameter estimates used in Fig. 4.

Helsinki-Declaration

The data for the clinical samples were collected in two health centers in accordance with the respective ethical guidelines in place.

Conflict of interest

Rainer W. Alexandrowicz, Fabian Friedrich, Rebecca Jahn, and Nathalie Soulier declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Applied Psychology and Methods Research, Institute of Psychology, Alps-Adria-University of Klagenfurt, Universitätsstraße 65, 9020, Klagenfurt, Austria

    Rainer W. Alexandrowicz PhD

  2. Clinical Division of Social Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Fabian Friedrich MD, Rebecca Jahn MD & Nathalie Soulier MD

Authors
  1. Rainer W. Alexandrowicz PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Fabian Friedrich MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca Jahn MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nathalie Soulier MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rainer W. Alexandrowicz PhD.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alexandrowicz, R.W., Friedrich, F., Jahn, R. et al. Using Rasch-models to compare the 30-, 20-, and 12-items version of the general health questionnaire taking four recoding schemes into account. Neuropsychiatr 29, 179–191 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40211-015-0160-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40211-015-0160-z

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation