Koeter M W
Department of Social Psychiatry, University of Groningen, The Netherlands.
J Affect Disord. 1992 Apr;24(4):271-9. doi: 10.1016/0165-0327(92)90112-j.
This article presents the results of a comparison between the validity of the SCL anxiety, phobic anxiety and depression scales and the GHQ-28 anxiety-/insomnia and severe depression scales in a psychiatric outpatient population. Validity was studied at a categorical level with DSM-III diagnosis, and at a dimensional level with a prototypical anxiety and a prototypical depression scale. The SCL anxiety and depression scales and the GHQ depression scale all showed good convergent and divergent validity, however the GHQ anxiety/insomnia scale showed neither convergent nor divergent validity. It is concluded that as a screening instrument, the relative shortness of the GHQ-28 is a considerable advantage over the SCL-90. However, the GHQ-12 may be an even better alternative. As a multi dimensional measure of psychopathology, the SCL-90 is to be preferred, because it covers more dimensions. If one is interested in anxiety, the SCL-90 also seems the better choice.
本文呈现了在精神科门诊患者群体中，对症状自评量表（SCL）焦虑、恐惧焦虑和抑郁量表与一般健康问卷-28（GHQ-28）焦虑/失眠和重度抑郁量表的效度进行比较的结果。效度在分类层面通过《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版（DSM-III）诊断进行研究，在维度层面通过一个典型焦虑量表和一个典型抑郁量表进行研究。SCL焦虑和抑郁量表以及GHQ抑郁量表均显示出良好的聚合效度和区分效度，然而GHQ焦虑/失眠量表既未显示出聚合效度也未显示出区分效度。得出的结论是，作为一种筛查工具，GHQ-28相对较短的长度是相较于SCL-90的一个显著优势。然而，GHQ-12可能是一个更好的选择。作为一种精神病理学的多维测量工具，SCL-90更受青睐，因为它涵盖了更多维度。如果关注焦虑，SCL-90似乎也是更好的选择。
