Trial reportPloS one2023
Factorial structure, reliability, and construct validity of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7): Evidence from Malaysia.
Trial report in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of high-frequency vibration, cotton rolls and elastomeric wafers in alleviating debonding pain of orthodontic metal brackets: a randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Trajectory and influencing factors of changes in anxiety and depression in elderly patients after lumbar interbody fusion.World journal of psychiatry · 2026Article
- Sex differences in the network structures of depressive symptom profiles in Asian patients with depressive disorders: findings from the Research on Asian Psychotropic Patterns for Antidepressants, Phase 3.Acta neuropsychiatrica · 2025Article
- Clinical utility of the GAD-7 for detecting generalized anxiety in Quechua indigenous people.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Exploring anxiety in elderly pulmonary tuberculosis inpatients using propensity score matching method.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Internal Validity and Reliability of the GAD-7 Test in Latin America.Chronic stress (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders in Malaysia. Psychometrically sound measurements are urgently needed to assess anxiety symptoms. The extensively used Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) is a promising candidate. However, studies on its factorial validity show mixed findings. While the one-factor solution has been replicated in different cultural contexts, some studies found different factorial structures instead. This study aimed to clarify the factorial validity of the English version of the GAD-7 in the Malaysian context. The responses collected from 1272 emerging to older adults in Malaysia were randomly divided into two halves and submitted to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) respectively. Four acceptable models were explored in EFA ranging from unidimensional factor with 7 items to 3-factor models with 6 items. The four models revealed in EFA and the other competing models found in past studies were then examined and compared using CFA. The 6-item second-order model with a general factor of anxiety and three first-order factors with two items respectively (i.e., GAD-6) showed a more harmonic result and hence, is preferable. Moreover, the GAD-6 and its three subscales also showed satisfactory internal consistency and construct validity. This study uncovers a new and unique factorial structure of the GAD screening tool that fits in the Malaysian context. The scale may reveal GAD symptomatic dimensions that guide clinical interventions.
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.