Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A comparison of the validity of GHQ-12 and CHQ-12 in Chinese primary care patients in Manchester.

      Psychological Medicine
      Adult, China, ethnology, Cross-Cultural Comparison, England, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Disorders, diagnosis, psychology, Personality Tests, statistics & numerical data, Primary Health Care, Psychometrics, Reproducibility of Results

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The present study compares the efficacy of the GHQ-12 and the Chinese Health Questionnaire (CHQ-12) in Cantonese speaking Chinese primary-care patients living in Greater Manchester, using relative operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. We did not find that the Chinese version offered any advantage over the conventional version of the GHQ in this population. Stepwise discriminant analysis however confirmed the value of individual items in the former pertaining to specific somatic symptoms and interpersonal relationships in differentiating cases from non-cases. Information biases, arising from the lack of a reliability study on the second-stage case identifying interview and the unique linguistic characteristics of the Chinese language may have affected the overall validity indices of the questionnaires. The study also examines the effects of using different criteria to define a case, and shows that with increasing levels of severity, there is an improvement in the diagnostic performance of the two questionnaires as reflected by areas under ROC curves and traditional validity indices. Possible explanations of these findings are discussed. The scoring method proposed by Goodchild & Duncan-Jones (1985) when used on these questionnaires had no demonstrable advantage over the conventional scoring method.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article