ArticleSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2016
Computerized adaptive testing of population psychological distress: simulation-based evaluation of GHQ-30.
Article in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing an accurate and efficient tool for the internalizing spectrum: A simulation study of the adaptive algorithm to the Inventory of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms II (IDAS-II).International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2024Article
- Measuring glaucoma quality of life in an Asian population using item banking: psychometric evaluation and computerized adaptive testing simulations.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Mental Health Status before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Patients First Visiting a Psychosomatic Internal Medicine Clinic in Tokyo, Japan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Children's family experiences: development of the PROMISQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGoldberg's General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) items are frequently used to assess psychological distress but no study to date has investigated the GHQ-30's potential for adaptive administration. In computerized adaptive testing (CAT) items are matched optimally to the targeted distress level of respondents instead of relying on fixed-length versions of instruments. We therefore calibrate GHQ-30 items and report a simulation study exploring the potential of this instrument for adaptive administration in a longitudinal setting.
methodsGHQ-30 responses of 3445 participants with 2 completed assessments (baseline, 7-year follow-up) in the UK Health and Lifestyle Survey were calibrated using item response theory. Our simulation study evaluated the efficiency of CAT administration of the items, cross-sectionally and longitudinally, with different estimators, item selection methods, and measurement precision criteria.
resultsTo yield accurate distress measurements (marginal reliability at least 0.90) nearly all GHQ-30 items need to be administered to most survey respondents in general population samples. When lower accuracy is permissible (marginal reliability of 0.80), adaptive administration saves approximately 2/3 of the items. For longitudinal applications, change scores based on the complete set of GHQ-30 items correlate highly with change scores from adaptive administrations.
conclusionsThe rationale for CAT-GHQ-30 is only supported when the required marginal reliability is lower than 0.9, which is most likely to be the case in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies assessing mean changes in populations. Precise measurement of psychological distress at the individual level can be achieved, but requires the deployment of all 30 items.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.