Rodebaugh Thomas L, Holaway Robert M, Heimberg Richard G
Washington University in St. Louis.
Assessment. 2008 Sep;15(3):343-50. doi: 10.1177/1073191107312547. Epub 2008 Jan 17.
Despite favorable psychometric properties, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.) (GAD-Q-IV) does not have a known factor structure, which calls into question use of its original weighted scoring system (usually referred to as the dimensional score). Analyses appropriate to categorical item responses in a large sample of undergraduates were used to establish the scale's factor structure. Analyses indicated that a one-factor structure resulted in good fit. A scoring method based on this one-factor structure was compared with a variety of alternative scoring procedures, and it was found that a method based on factor scores did relatively well but that the previously suggested dimensional score failed to perform better than a simple sum of items. Results support the general unity of the measure but raise doubts regarding its scoring and response options.
尽管具有良好的心理测量特性,但《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》(第4版)中的广泛性焦虑症问卷(GAD-Q-IV)没有已知的因子结构,这使得对其原始加权评分系统(通常称为维度评分)的使用产生了疑问。在大量本科生样本中,采用适合分类项目反应的分析方法来确定该量表的因子结构。分析表明,单因子结构拟合良好。将基于这一单因子结构的评分方法与多种替代评分程序进行了比较,发现基于因子得分的方法表现相对较好,但先前建议的维度评分并不比简单的项目总和表现更好。结果支持了该测量方法的总体一致性,但对其评分和反应选项提出了疑问。