↓ Skip to main content

The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) in the general population: scale structure, reliability, measurement invariance and normative data: a cross-sectional survey

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) in the general population: scale structure, reliability, measurement invariance and normative data: a cross-sectional survey
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0533-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Berend Terluin, Niels Smits, Evelien P. M. Brouwers, Henrica C. W. de Vet

Abstract

The Four-Dimensional Symptom Questionnaire (4DSQ) is a self-report questionnaire measuring distress, depression, anxiety and somatization with separate scales. The 4DSQ has extensively been validated in clinical samples, especially from primary care settings. Information about measurement properties and normative data in the general population was lacking. In a Dutch general population sample we examined the 4DSQ scales' structure, the scales' reliability and measurement invariance with respect to gender, age and education, the scales' score distributions across demographic categories, and normative data. 4DSQ data were collected in a representative Dutch Internet panel. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the scales' structure. Reliability was examined by Cronbach's alpha, and coefficients omega-total and omega-hierarchical. Differential item functioning (DIF) analysis was used to evaluate measurement invariance across gender, age and education. The total response rate was 82.4 % (n = 5273/6399). The depression scale proved to be unidimensional. The other scales were best represented as bifactor models consisting of a large general factor and one or more smaller specific factors. The general factors accounted for more than 95 % of the reliable variance of the scales. Reliability was high (≥0.85) by all estimates. The distress-, depression- and anxiety scales were invariant across gender, age and education. The somatization scale demonstrated some lack of measurement invariance as a result of decreased thresholds for some of the items in young people (16-24 years) and increased thresholds in elderly people (65+ years). The somatization scale was invariant regarding gender and education. The 4DSQ scores varied significantly across demographic categories, but the explained variance was small (<6 %). Normative data were generated for gender and age categories. Approximately 17 % of the participants scored above average on de distress scale, whereas 12 % scored above average on de somatization scale. Percentages of people scoring high enough on depression or anxiety as to suspect the presence of depressive or anxiety disorder were 4.1 and 2.5 respectively. Evidence supports reliability and measurement invariance of the 4DSQ in the general Dutch population. The normative data provided in this study can be used to compare a subject's 4DSQ scores with a general population reference group.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Researcher 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 4%
Other 15 11%
Unknown 40 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 24 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 24 18%
Psychology 19 14%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Engineering 2 1%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 45 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2016.
All research outputs
#15,384,302
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,306
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,732
of 321,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#16
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.