ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Psychometric assessment and exploratory scale refinement of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale among adolescents and young adults in a Swedish context.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
backgroundThe Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale (GAD-7) could provide currently lacking data on anxiety levels among adolescents and young adults in Sweden. However, psychometric assessments of the scale are scarce in this population. Additionally, the structural validity of the scale needs to be examined further, given conflicting findings in other populations. The aim of this study was to psychometrically evaluate the GAD-7 among 15-29-year-olds using Rasch analysis and confirmatory factor analysis in a Swedish, general population sample. In addition, an iterative process explored if revised versions of the scale could be identified that fit the Rasch model in this sample.
methodsA random, age- and sex-stratified sample of 15-29-year-olds from the Swedish population register was drawn, from which stratified groups were randomly invited to participate. Data (n = 590) were collected through a study-specific app. Rasch analyses included investigation of item fit, local independence, principal components analysis of standardized Rasch model residuals, response category functioning, measurement invariance, scale-to-sample targeting, and reliability. In addition, confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted and interpreted using dynamic, data-adaptive cutoffs. An exploratory, iterative process was undertaken aiming at scale refinement based on results for the GAD-7.
resultsNo Rasch analyses provided support for the unidimensionality of the GAD-7, which also displayed issues with disordered response categories and measurement invariance. The CFA found substantial misfit for the one-factor model. The exploratory scale refinement resulted in two abbreviated scales warranting further investigation: Items 1-3 fit the Rasch model as a unidimensional scale and demonstrated acceptable to good reliability. Items 5-7 had good fit after merging the two highest response categories, although demonstrated poor reliability.
conclusionsNo analyses provided support for the unidimensionality of the GAD-7 among 15-29-year-olds in Sweden. While these findings do not support the use of a single sum score, they require confirmation in independent samples. Future research should evaluate whether the abbreviated, candidate scale comprising items 1-3 could be useful to assess anxiety in this population, including examination of criterion validity and the potential benefits of adding a response category to enhance both reliability and scale-to-sample targeting.
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.