Trial reportPloS one2024
Do errors in the GHQ-12 response options matter?
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The longitudinal trajectories of mental health outcomes in healthcare workers in England during the COVID-19 pandemic.Psychological medicine · 2026Article
- COVID-19-related sickness absence among 4,721 NHS staff in England and its relation with long COVID symptoms: findings from NHS CHECK.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Post COVID-19 syndrome among 5248 healthcare workers in England: longitudinal findings from NHS CHECK.Occupational and environmental medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe twelve item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) is a widely used measure of psychological wellbeing. Because there are seven different sets of response options across the twelve items, there is scope for transcription errors to occur when researchers assemble their study materials. The impact of such errors might be more important if they occur in the first set of response options than if they occur later in the questionnaire, once participants have become aware that options to the right of the GHQ-12 response sets always indicate worse wellbeing.
aimsTo test the impact of introducing errors into the first and eighth set of response options for the GHQ-12 that render those response sets partially illogical.
methodsWe used a double-blind randomised controlled trial, pre-registered with Open Science Framework (osf.io/syhwf). Participants were recruited by a market research company from their existing panel of respondents in Great Britain. Participants were randomly allocated to receive one of three versions of the GHQ-12: a correct version (n = 500), a version with a mistake in the first item (n = 502), or a mistake in the eighth item (n = 502). Mistakes replaced 'better than usual' (item one) or 'more so than usual' (item eight) with 'not at all.'
resultsWe found no differences between the versions in terms of number of participants with possible poor psychological wellbeing (χ2 = 0.32, df = 2, p = 0.85) or in mean GHQ-12 scores for the three groups (F(2, 1501) = 0.26, p = 0.77).
conclusionsSmall deviations from the standard GHQ-12 wording do not have a substantive impact on results.
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.