Surtees P G
University Department of Psychiatry, Royal Edinburgh Hospital.
Br J Psychiatry. 1987 Jun;150:828-35. doi: 10.1192/bjp.150.6.828.
Goodchild & Duncan-Jones (1985) have proposed a new scoring method for Goldberg's General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) in which increased weight is given to item responses considered to indicate current (but chronic) affective disorders. This report examines both their revised and the conventional scoring of the GHQ in the context of a longitudinal general population study of psychiatric disorder among women. Sensitivity estimates based upon advised cut-points were found to be higher for the revised than for the conventional scoring scheme, and this difference remained when allowance was made for the duration for which disorders had been present prior to assessment with the GHQ. However, Relative Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that while both forms of scoring the GHQ discriminated affective conditions (with or without allowance for their duration) there was no significant difference in their ability to do so. The justification therefore for the post-hoc interpretation of certain item responses as indicators of enduring affective states remains controversial and an issue for future research.
古德柴尔德和邓肯 - 琼斯（1985年）提出了一种针对戈德堡一般健康问卷（GHQ）的新评分方法，在该方法中，对于被认为表明当前（但为慢性）情感障碍的项目回答给予更高的权重。本报告在一项针对女性精神障碍的纵向普通人群研究背景下，考察了他们对GHQ的修订评分和传统评分。基于建议切点得出的敏感性估计显示，修订评分的敏感性高于传统评分方案，并且在考虑到使用GHQ评估之前障碍已存在的持续时间后，这种差异仍然存在。然而，相对操作特征（ROC）分析表明，虽然两种形式的GHQ评分都能区分情感状况（无论是否考虑其持续时间），但它们在这方面的能力没有显著差异。因此，将某些项目回答事后解释为持久情感状态指标的合理性仍存在争议，是未来研究的一个问题。
