Whaley Caron J, Morrison David L, Payne Roy L, Fritschi Lin, Wall Toby D
School of Psychology.
Institute of Work Psychology.
J Occup Health Psychol. 2005 Oct;10(4):310-319. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.10.4.310.
This article examines the proposition that the traditional scoring method of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) underestimates the number of respondents classified as "cases." A revised "chronic" scoring method (the CGHQ) is used and demonstrates superior construct validity and greater sensitivity. A comparison of the CGHQ and GHQ also shows the CGHQ to be a superior criterion measure. These claims are demonstrated by survey data gathered from 3 occupational samples (Ns=11,637, 2,253, and 2,124). Results show that the CGHQ is more appropriate as a screening instrument for psychological morbidity. Tests of construct validity also favor the CGHQ with only a slight advantage for predictive validity in terms of variance explained. The more desirable statistical properties of the CGHQ result in a reduction of significant interaction terms and are strongly recommended in future studies as a means of controlling Type I errors when tests of moderation are examined.
本文探讨了这样一种观点，即一般健康问卷（GHQ）的传统计分方法低估了被归类为“病例”的受访者数量。采用了一种修订后的“慢性”计分方法（CGHQ），该方法显示出更好的结构效度和更高的敏感性。对CGHQ和GHQ的比较还表明，CGHQ是一种更优的标准测量方法。这些结论通过从3个职业样本（样本量分别为11637、2253和2124）收集的调查数据得到了证明。结果表明，CGHQ作为心理疾病的筛查工具更为合适。结构效度测试也支持CGHQ，在解释方差方面，其预测效度仅略有优势。CGHQ更理想的统计特性导致显著交互项减少，强烈建议在未来研究中，当检验调节效应时，将其作为控制I类错误的一种方法。
