Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42594092›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Psychometric evaluation of the GHQ-28 in a South African recidivist sample.

Thabile S Manengela, Erhabor Sunday Idemudia, Lawrence Ejike Ugwu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Thabile S ManengelaSchool of Psychosocial Health, North-West University, Mahikeng, South Africa.
Erhabor Sunday IdemudiaFaculty of Humanities, North-West University, Mahikeng, South Africa.
Lawrence Ejike UgwuFaculty of Humanities, North-West University, Mahikeng, South Africa.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5335-2905

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the psychometric performance of the 28-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) in an archived South African recidivist sample. Data from 385 respondents were examined using item descriptives, corrected item-total correlations, confirmatory factor analysis, internal-consistency estimates, exploratory network analysis, and post hoc reduced-item sensitivity models; the network analysis used 327 complete cases. Among the full-scale models, the correlated four-factor model showed the best relative fit, chi-square(344) = 543.81, CFI = .944, TLI = .939, RMSEA = .042, and SRMR = .105. The elevated SRMR and several negative or weak loadings, however, indicated residual misfit and possible item-direction or scoring problems. Cronbach's alpha was.747 for the total score and ranged from.403 to.733 across the four domains. Anxiety/Insomnia and Severe Depression performed more consistently than Somatic Symptoms and Social Dysfunction. Network results were mixed rather than uniformly convergent with the latent-variable findings. Reduced-item models produced better descriptive fit indices, but they used different item sets, were data-driven, and did not establish a validated short form. Because the original item labels and scoring key were not available for independent verification, domain-level interpretations, especially for Somatic Symptoms and Social Dysfunction, remain provisional. The results provide preliminary support for a multidimensional representation of distress while underscoring the need to verify item direction, reproduce the analyses from the archived code, and replicate the findings in independent correctional samples.

Indexed as

PsychometricsAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSouth AfricaSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID42594092
PMCPMC13472388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.