ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022
Measurement invariance of the GAD-5 Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale in a Mexican general population sample.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Arabic Generalized Anxiety Disorder 2 (GAD-2): Psychometric evaluation among mothers of children with intellectual disabilities.Dialogues in clinical neuroscience · 2026Article
- Psychometric validation of selected scales assessing mental health conditions among Ghanaian youth.Global mental health (Cambridge, England) · 2026Article
- Patients reported outcome of cognitive function scale: a psychometric evaluation.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Psychometric properties of the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ) in adult Mexican cancer patients with chronic pain.Palliative & supportive care · 2025Article
- Psychometric properties of the Arabic generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-5) in a non-clinical sample of Arabic-speaking adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the measurement of invariance by sex, age, and educational level of an online version of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale in a five-item version (GAD-5). Configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance were evaluated using data from 79,473 respondents who answered a mental health questionnaire during the COVID-19 pandemic in Mexico. The sex variable was classified as male or female; age was categorized as minors, youth, young adults, adults, and older adults; and educational level was divided into basic, upper secondary, higher, and graduate education. To test for configural invariance, confirmatory factor models were constructed. For metric invariance, equality restrictions were established for the factor loadings between the construct and its items; for scalar invariance, equality restrictions were established between the intercepts; strict variance implied the additional restriction of the residuals. Statistical analysis was performed in R software with the lavaan package. The results show that with respect to sex, age, and educational level, configural and metric measurement invariance was confirmed (ΔCFI < 0.002; ΔRMSEA < 0.015). However, with respect to scalar and strict invariance, the results showed significant differences regarding the fit model (ΔCFI > 0.002; ΔRMSEA > 0.015). We conclude that the GAD-5 presents configural and metric invariance for sex, age, and educational level, and scalar invariance for sex and age groups. However, the scale does not demonstrate strict invariance. We discuss the implications and suggest that this result could be related to the evaluation of sociodemographic variables.
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.