4.6 Article

Valid group comparisons can be made with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9): A measurement invariance study across groups by demographic characteristics

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 14, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0221717

关键词

-

资金

  1. Universidad Catolica los Angeles de Chimbote (ULADECH-Catolica)
  2. PSYCOPERU Peruvian Research Institute of Educational and Social Psychology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Analyze the measurement invariance and the factor structure of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) in the Peruvian population. Method Secondary data analysis performed using cross-sectional data from the Health Questionnaire of the Demographic and Health Survey in Peru. Variables of interest were the PHQ-9 and demographic characteristics (sex, age group, level of education, socioeconomic status, marital status, and area of residence). Factor structure was evaluated by standard confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and measurement invariance by multi-group CFA, using standard goodness-of-fit indices criteria for interpreting results from both CFAs. Analysis of the internal consistency (alpha and omega) was also pursued. Results Data from 30,449 study participants were analyzed, 56.7% were women, average age was 40.5 years (standard deviation (SD) = 16.3), 65.9% lived in urban areas, 74.6% were married, and had 9 years of education on average (SD = 4.6). From standard CFA, a one-dimensional model presented the best fit (CFI = 0.936; RMSEA = 0.089; SRMR = 0.039). From multi-group CFA, all progressively restricted models had Delta CFI< 0.01 across almost all groups by demographic characteristics. PHQ-9 reliability was optimal (alpha = omega = 0.87). Conclusions The evidence presents support for the one-dimensional model and measurement invariance of the PHQ-9 measure, allowing for reliable comparisons between sex, age groups, education level, socioeconomic status, marital status, and residence area, and recommends its use within the Peruvian population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据