Title |
Validation of the Chinese version of the PHQ-15 in a tertiary hospital
|
---|---|
Published in |
BMC Psychiatry, April 2016
|
DOI | 10.1186/s12888-016-0798-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Lan Zhang, Kurt Fritzsche, Yang Liu, Jian Wang, Mingjin Huang, Yu Wang, Liang Chen, Shanxia Luo, Jianying Yu, Zaiquan Dong, Liling Mo, Rainer Leonhart |
Abstract |
This study aimed to investigate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15) in a tertiary hospital. Using a cross-sectional study design, the Chinese version of the PHQ-15 was administered to a total of 1329 inpatients. To examine the discriminant validity of this questionnaire, we investigated the correlation of the PHQ-15 score with sociodemographic data and the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scale scores. Exploratory factor analysis was performed to assess the internal consistency of the PHQ-15. To evaluate the consistency of this questionnaire with item response theory (IRT), IRT analysis was performed. The Chinese version of the PHQ-15 showed good reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.83). The correlations of the PHQ-15 scores with the PHQ-9 depression scale scores (r = 0.565) and the GAD-7 anxiety scale scores (r = 0.512) were moderate; these results suggested that the PHQ-15 had discriminant validity. We identified three factors, referred to as "cardiopulmonary," "gastrointestinal," and "pain/neurological," which explained 56 % of the total variance. A second-order factor analysis including these three factors produced an acceptable model. Several items (4, 8 and 11) displayed extreme floor effects. Additionally, item 4 displayed a very small variance of 0.35 and showed very small differences in its thresholds based on IRT analysis. The PHQ-15 scale had good reliability and high validity to detect patients with high somatic symptom severity in a Chinese tertiary hospital. Several of the current findings were consistent with previous research on the PHQ-15 in Western countries and in China. To improve the diagnostic quality of this questionnaire, items 4, 8 and 11 can be omitted. |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 9 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 14% |
Researcher | 6 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 5 | 9% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 9% |
Other | 7 | 12% |
Unknown | 18 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 15 | 26% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 14% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
Other | 5 | 9% |
Unknown | 23 | 40% |