Lloyd Maddison, Sugden Nicole, Thomas Matt, McGrath Andrew, Skilbeck Clive
School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Western New South Wales Local Health District, Bathurst, New South Wales, Australia.
Br J Psychol. 2023 May;114(2):457-475. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12637. Epub 2023 Feb 6.
The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS; Zigmond - Snaith, 1983) is widely used; however, its factor structure is unclear, with studies reporting differing unidimensional, two-factor and three-factor models. We aimed to address some key theoretical and methodological issues contributing to inconsistencies in HADS structures across samples. We reviewed existing HADS models and compared their fit using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We also investigated methodological effects by comparing factor structures derived from Rasch and Principal Components Analysis (PCA) methods, as well as effects of a negative wording factor. An Australian community-dwelling sample consisting of 189 females and 158 males aged 17-86 (M = 35.73, SD = 17.41) completed the 14-item HADS. The Rasch Analysis, PCA and CFA all supported the original two-factor structure. Although some three-factor models had good fit, they had unacceptable reliability. In the CFA, a hierarchical bifactor model with a general distress factor and uncorrelated depression and anxiety subscales produced the best fit, but the general factor was not unidimensional. The addition of a negative wording factor improved model fit. These findings highlight the effects of differing methodologies in producing inconsistent HADS factor structures across studies. Further replication of model fit across samples and refinement of the HADS items is warranted.
医院焦虑抑郁量表(HADS;齐格蒙德-斯内斯,1983)被广泛使用;然而,其因子结构尚不清楚,研究报告了不同的单维、双因子和三因子模型。我们旨在解决一些关键的理论和方法学问题,这些问题导致了不同样本中HADS结构的不一致。我们回顾了现有的HADS模型,并使用验证性因子分析(CFA)比较它们的拟合度。我们还通过比较从拉施分析和主成分分析(PCA)方法得出的因子结构,以及负向措辞因子的影响,来研究方法学效应。一个由189名女性和158名男性组成的澳大利亚社区居住样本,年龄在17 - 86岁之间(M = 35.73,SD = 17.41),完成了14项的HADS。拉施分析、PCA和CFA均支持最初的双因子结构。尽管一些三因子模型拟合良好,但它们的信度不可接受。在CFA中,一个具有一般困扰因子以及不相关的抑郁和焦虑子量表的层次双因子模型拟合最佳,但一般因子并非单维。负向措辞因子的加入改善了模型拟合。这些发现凸显了不同方法学在不同研究中产生不一致的HADS因子结构方面的影响。有必要在不同样本中进一步重复模型拟合并完善HADS条目。