Psychometric Properties of the Nine-Item Personal Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) Seven-Item Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) With People With Intellectual Disabilities

IF 2 2区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL Journal of Intellectual Disability Research Pub Date : 2025-03-17 DOI:10.1111/jir.13231
Dave Dagnan, Rob Saunders, Joshua Stott, Richard Thwaites, Chris Hatton
{"title":"Psychometric Properties of the Nine-Item Personal Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) Seven-Item Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7), and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) With People With Intellectual Disabilities","authors":"Dave Dagnan,&nbsp;Rob Saunders,&nbsp;Joshua Stott,&nbsp;Richard Thwaites,&nbsp;Chris Hatton","doi":"10.1111/jir.13231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>The nine-item Physical Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) are, respectively, self-report measures of depression, generalised anxiety, and the impact of mental health on the person's personal functioning that are widely used in mainstream mental health services in England. The psychometric properties of these scales when used with people with intellectual disabilities have not been established.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Method</h3>\n \n <p>Item level data for the PHQ-9 (<i>n</i> = 128), GAD-7 (<i>n</i> = 124) and WSAS (<i>n</i> = 133) for people with intellectual disabilities in an English NHS Talking Therapies for anxiety and depression (NHSTT) service in the north of England were analysed using internal reliability statistics and confirmatory factor analysis.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>In this study, the full PHQ-9, GAD-7 and WSAS have Cronbach's <i>α</i> of 0.81, 0.84 and 0.81, respectively, and have acceptable ranges of corrected item-total correlations. The two-factor structures for the PHQ-9 and the GAD-7 were a better fit than single-factor structures, although the single-factor fit and the correlation between the two factors within each scale suggest that their use as a single scale is justified. The single-factor structure for the WSAS was a good fit.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In this study, the widely used PHQ-9, GAD-7 and WSAS demonstrate internal consistency values and factor analysis structure similar to those for individuals without intellectual disabilities. The data support the use of these measures for people with intellectual disabilities attending routine primary care mental health services.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":16163,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","volume":"69 6","pages":"502-509"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jir.13231","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intellectual Disability Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.13231","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The nine-item Physical Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7) and the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (WSAS) are, respectively, self-report measures of depression, generalised anxiety, and the impact of mental health on the person's personal functioning that are widely used in mainstream mental health services in England. The psychometric properties of these scales when used with people with intellectual disabilities have not been established.

Method

Item level data for the PHQ-9 (n = 128), GAD-7 (n = 124) and WSAS (n = 133) for people with intellectual disabilities in an English NHS Talking Therapies for anxiety and depression (NHSTT) service in the north of England were analysed using internal reliability statistics and confirmatory factor analysis.

Results

In this study, the full PHQ-9, GAD-7 and WSAS have Cronbach's α of 0.81, 0.84 and 0.81, respectively, and have acceptable ranges of corrected item-total correlations. The two-factor structures for the PHQ-9 and the GAD-7 were a better fit than single-factor structures, although the single-factor fit and the correlation between the two factors within each scale suggest that their use as a single scale is justified. The single-factor structure for the WSAS was a good fit.

Conclusions

In this study, the widely used PHQ-9, GAD-7 and WSAS demonstrate internal consistency values and factor analysis structure similar to those for individuals without intellectual disabilities. The data support the use of these measures for people with intellectual disabilities attending routine primary care mental health services.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
智力障碍者九项个人健康问卷(PHQ-9)、七项广泛性焦虑障碍量表(GAD-7)和工作与社会适应量表(WSAS)的心理测量特征
背景:9项体质健康问卷(PHQ-9)、7项广泛性焦虑障碍量表(GAD-7)和工作与社会适应量表(WSAS)分别是英国主流心理健康服务机构广泛使用的抑郁、广泛性焦虑和心理健康对个人功能影响的自我报告测量方法。这些量表在用于智障人士时的心理测量特性尚未确定。方法:采用内部信度统计和验证性因子分析方法,对英国北部NHS焦虑抑郁谈话疗法(NHSTT)服务中智力残疾者的PHQ-9 (n = 128)、GAD-7 (n = 124)和WSAS (n = 133)的项目水平数据进行分析。结果:在本研究中,完整的PHQ-9、GAD-7和WSAS的Cronbach′s α分别为0.81、0.84和0.81,校正后的项目-总量相关性在可接受范围内。PHQ-9和GAD-7的双因素结构比单因素结构更适合,尽管单因素拟合和每个量表中两个因素之间的相关性表明它们作为单一量表的使用是合理的。WSAS的单因素结构非常适合。结论:在本研究中,广泛使用的PHQ-9、GAD-7和WSAS具有与非智障个体相似的内部一致性值和因子分析结构。这些数据支持智力残疾者在常规初级保健精神卫生服务中使用这些措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
5.60%
发文量
81
期刊介绍: The Journal of Intellectual Disability Research is devoted exclusively to the scientific study of intellectual disability and publishes papers reporting original observations in this field. The subject matter is broad and includes, but is not restricted to, findings from biological, educational, genetic, medical, psychiatric, psychological and sociological studies, and ethical, philosophical, and legal contributions that increase knowledge on the treatment and prevention of intellectual disability and of associated impairments and disabilities, and/or inform public policy and practice. Expert reviews on themes in which recent research has produced notable advances will be included. Such reviews will normally be by invitation.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Prevalence and Modifiable Risk Factors of Dementia in People With Down Syndrome: Cross-Sectional Study of Japan in Collaboration With the Intellectual Diversity for Goodness Research Consortium (INDIGO-2019). Continued Involvement: A Scoping Review on Family Members' Needs and Experiences Collaborating With Support Staff for Relatives With Intellectual Disabilities Living Outside the Family Home. Resting Energy Expenditure in Adults With Williams Syndrome: Comparative Accuracy of Predictive Equations. Age-Specific Diagnostic Panorama Among People With Intellectual Disabilities in Comparison With the General Population: A Longitudinal Register Study (IDcare).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1