IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0125096.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnostic Validity of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 (GAD-7) among Pregnant Women

Author

Listed:
  • Qiu-Yue Zhong
  • Bizu Gelaye
  • Alan M Zaslavsky
  • Jesse R Fann
  • Marta B Rondon
  • Sixto E Sánchez
  • Michelle A Williams

Abstract

Objective: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) during pregnancy is associated with several adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. A reliable and valid screening tool for GAD should lead to earlier detection and treatment. Among pregnant Peruvian women, a brief screening tool, the GAD-7, has not been validated. This study aims to evaluate the reliability and validity of the GAD-7. Methods: Of 2,978 women who attended their first perinatal care visit and had the GAD-7 screening, 946 had a Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). The Cronbach’s alpha was calculated to examine the reliability. We assessed the criterion validity by calculating operating characteristics. The construct validity was evaluated using factor analysis and association with health status on the CIDI. The cross-cultural validity was explored using the Rasch Rating Scale Model (RSM). Results: The reliability of the GAD-7 was good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89). A cutoff score of 7 or higher, maximizing the Youden Index, yielded a sensitivity of 73.3% and a specificity of 67.3%. One-factor structure of the GAD-7 was confirmed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Concurrent validity was supported by the evidence that higher GAD-7 scores were associated with poor self-rated physical and mental health. The Rasch RSM further confirmed the cross-cultural validity of the GAD-7. Conclusion: The results suggest that the Spanish-language version of the GAD-7 may be used as a screening tool for pregnant Peruvian women. The GAD-7 has good reliability, factorial validity, and concurrent validity. The optimal cutoff score obtained by maximizing the Youden Index should be considered cautiously; women who screened positive may require further investigation to confirm GAD diagnosis.

Suggested Citation

  • Qiu-Yue Zhong & Bizu Gelaye & Alan M Zaslavsky & Jesse R Fann & Marta B Rondon & Sixto E Sánchez & Michelle A Williams, 2015. "Diagnostic Validity of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder - 7 (GAD-7) among Pregnant Women," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125096
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125096
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125096
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0125096&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0125096?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craig K. Abbey & Miguel P. Eckstein & John M. Boone, 2013. "Estimating the Relative Utility of Screening Mammography," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(4), pages 510-520, May.
    2. David Andrich, 1978. "A rating formulation for ordered response categories," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 43(4), pages 561-573, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Karen Yirmiya & Noa Yakirevich-Amir & Heidi Preis & Amit Lotan & Shir Atzil & Inbal Reuveni, 2021. "Women’s Depressive Symptoms during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Pregnancy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(8), pages 1-13, April.
    2. Dominique L G Van Praag & Haghish Ebad Fardzadeh & Amra Covic & Andrew I R Maas & Nicole von Steinbüchel, 2020. "Preliminary validation of the Dutch version of the Posttraumatic stress disorder checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) after traumatic brain injury in a civilian population," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Urszula Nowacka & Szymon Kozlowski & Marcin Januszewski & Janusz Sierdzinski & Artur Jakimiuk & Tadeusz Issat, 2021. "COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Anxiety in Pregnant Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-10, July.
    4. María de la Fe Rodríguez-Muñoz & Natalia Ruiz-Segovia & Cristina Soto-Balbuena & Huynh-Nhu Le & María Eugenia Olivares-Crespo & Nuria Izquierdo-Méndez, 2020. "The Psychometric Properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 for Pregnant Women," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(20), pages 1-10, October.
    5. Joanna Baran & Katarzyna Kalandyk-Osinko & Rafał Baran, 2022. "Does Prenatal Physical Activity Affect the Occurrence of Postnatal Anxiety and Depression? Longitudinal Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-12, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eun-Young Park & Soojung Chae, 2020. "Rasch Analysis of the Korean Parenting Stress Index Short Form (K-PSI-SF) in Mothers of Children with Cerebral Palsy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-11, September.
    2. P. A. Ferrari & S. Salini, 2008. "Measuring Service Quality: The Opinion of Europeans about Utilities," Working Papers 2008.36, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    3. Chang, Hsin-Li & Yang, Cheng-Hua, 2008. "Explore airlines’ brand niches through measuring passengers’ repurchase motivation—an application of Rasch measurement," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 105-112.
    4. Ivana Bassi & Matteo Carzedda & Enrico Gori & Luca Iseppi, 2022. "Rasch analysis of consumer attitudes towards the mountain product label," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 10(1), pages 1-25, December.
    5. Antonio Caronni & Marina Ramella & Pietro Arcuri & Claudia Salatino & Lucia Pigini & Maurizio Saruggia & Chiara Folini & Stefano Scarano & Rosa Maria Converti, 2023. "The Rasch Analysis Shows Poor Construct Validity and Low Reliability of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with Assistive Technology 2.0 (QUEST 2.0) Questionnaire," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-19, January.
    6. Wanke, Peter Fernandes & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel José & Moreira Antunes, Jorge Junio & Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz & Roubaud, David & Sobreiro, Vinicius Amorim & Santibanez Gonzalez‬, Erne, 2021. "An original information entropy-based quantitative evaluation model for low-carbon operations in an emerging market," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    7. Hua-Hua Chang, 1996. "The asymptotic posterior normality of the latent trait for polytomous IRT models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 61(3), pages 445-463, September.
    8. Curt Hagquist & Raili Välimaa & Nina Simonsen & Sakari Suominen, 2017. "Differential Item Functioning in Trend Analyses of Adolescent Mental Health – Illustrative Examples Using HBSC-Data from Finland," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 10(3), pages 673-691, September.
    9. Wang, Luming & Finn, Adam, 2014. "A psychometric theory that measures up to marketing reality: An adapted Many Faceted IRT model," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 93-102.
    10. Cristante, Francesca & Robusto, Egidio, 1999. "Assessing dependence among subjects' responses," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 259-274, November.
    11. Amy Snyder & Kenneth Royal, 2016. "Investigating the Financial Awareness and Behaviors of Veterinary Medical Students," International Journal of Economics and Finance, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(7), pages 201-201, July.
    12. Nicole Gideon & Nick Hawkes & Jonathan Mond & Rob Saunders & Kate Tchanturia & Lucy Serpell, 2016. "Development and Psychometric Validation of the EDE-QS, a 12 Item Short Form of the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-19, May.
    13. Huang, Jen-Hung & Peng, Kua-Hsin, 2012. "Fuzzy Rasch model in TOPSIS: A new approach for generating fuzzy numbers to assess the competitiveness of the tourism industries in Asian countries," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 456-465.
    14. Geofferey Masters & Benjamin Wright, 1984. "The essential process in a family of measurement models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 49(4), pages 529-544, December.
    15. Salzberger, Thomas & Newton, Fiona J. & Ewing, Michael T., 2014. "Detecting gender item bias and differential manifest response behavior: A Rasch-based solution," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 598-607.
    16. Karen M. Conrad & Kendon J. Conrad & Lora L. Passetti & Rodney R. Funk & Michael L. Dennis, 2015. "Validation of the Full and Short-Form Self-Help Involvement Scale Against the Rasch Measurement Model," Evaluation Review, , vol. 39(4), pages 395-427, August.
    17. Rasmus A. X. Persson, 2023. "Theoretical evaluation of partial credit scoring of the multiple-choice test item," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 81(2), pages 143-161, August.
    18. Wendy L. Martin & Alexander McKelvie & G. T. Lumpkin, 2016. "Centralization and delegation practices in family versus non-family SMEs: a Rasch analysis," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 755-769, October.
    19. Chang, Hsin-Li & Wu, Shun-Cheng, 2008. "Exploring the vehicle dependence behind mode choice: Evidence of motorcycle dependence in Taipei," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 307-320, February.
    20. Maurizio Carpita & Marica Manisera, 2011. "On the Imputation of Missing Data in Surveys with Likert-Type Scales," Journal of Classification, Springer;The Classification Society, vol. 28(1), pages 93-112, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0125096. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.