Do errors in the GHQ-12 response options matter?

Bethany Croak, Rupa Bhundia, Danielle Lamb, Neil Greenberg, Sharon A M Stevelink, Nora Trompeter, Simon Wessely and G James Rubin

PLOS ONE, 2024, vol. 19, issue 12, 1-7

Abstract: Background: The twelve item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) is a widely used measure of psychological wellbeing. Because there are seven different sets of response options across the twelve items, there is scope for transcription errors to occur when researchers assemble their study materials. The impact of such errors might be more important if they occur in the first set of response options than if they occur later in the questionnaire, once participants have become aware that options to the right of the GHQ-12 response sets always indicate worse wellbeing. Aims: To test the impact of introducing errors into the first and eighth set of response options for the GHQ-12 that render those response sets partially illogical. Methods: We used a double-blind randomised controlled trial, pre-registered with Open Science Framework (osf.io/syhwf). Participants were recruited by a market research company from their existing panel of respondents in Great Britain. Participants were randomly allocated to receive one of three versions of the GHQ-12: a correct version (n = 500), a version with a mistake in the first item (n = 502), or a mistake in the eighth item (n = 502). Mistakes replaced ‘better than usual’ (item one) or ‘more so than usual’ (item eight) with ‘not at all.’ Results: We found no differences between the versions in terms of number of participants with possible poor psychological wellbeing (χ2 = 0.32, df = 2, p = 0.85) or in mean GHQ-12 scores for the three groups (F(2, 1501) = 0.26, p = 0.77). Conclusions: Small deviations from the standard GHQ-12 wording do not have a substantive impact on results.

Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0314915 (text/html)
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id= ... 14915&type=printable (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0314915

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0314915

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science
Bibliographic data for series maintained by plosone ().