Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38812050›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2024

Rethinking students' mental health assessment through GHQ-12: evidence from the IRT approach.

Anna Comotti, Teresa Barnini, Alice Fattori, Maria Emilia Paladino, Michele Augusto Riva, Matteo Bonzini, Michael Belingheri

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Anna ComottiOccupational Medicine Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy. anna.comotti@policlinico.mi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-4058-8992
Teresa BarniniOccupational Medicine Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Alice FattoriOccupational Medicine Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7452-3424
Maria Emilia PaladinoUnit of Occupational Health, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4351-2711
Michele Augusto RivaUnit of Occupational Health, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7147-3460
Matteo BonziniOccupational Medicine Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6405-7554
Michael BelingheriUnit of Occupational Health, Fondazione IRCCS San Gerardo dei Tintori, Monza, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6807-6819

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) is a widely used screening tool for mental health assessment however its traditional scoring methods and cutoffs may not adequately capture the mental health complexities of younger populations.

methodsThis study explores GHQ-12 responses from a sample of university students. Possible differences in means scores considering gender, age, academic field and degree course were assessed through t-test or one-way ANOVA as appropriate. To deeper understanding different levels of severity and individual item impact on general distress measurement, we applied Item-Response-Theory (IRT) techniques (two-parameters logistic model). We compared students' population with a population of workers who underwent a similar psychological evaluation.

resultsA total of 3834 university students participated in the study. Results showed that a significant proportion (79%) of students reported psychological distress. Females and younger students obtained significantly higher average scores compared to others. IRT analysis found item-specific variations in mental distress levels, with more indicative items for short-term fluctuations and potential severe mental health concerns. Latent class analysis identified three distinct subgroups among students (including 20%, 37%, 43% of the participants respectively) with different levels of psychological distress severity. Comparison with a population of adults showed that students reported significantly higher scores with differences in the scale behavior.

conclusionOur results highlighted the unique mental health challenges faced by students, suggesting a reevaluation of GHQ-12 applicability and cutoff scores for younger populations, emphasizing the need for accurate instruments in mental health evaluation.

Indexed as

StudentsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthPsychological DistressPsychometricsStress, PsychologicalSurveys and QuestionnairesUniversitiesYoung AdultCovid-19General Health QuestionnaireItem response theoryOccupational health surveillanceUniversity students

Identifiers

PMID38812050
PMCPMC11134724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.