2014
DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.10.009
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using the GAD-Q-IV to identify generalized anxiety disorder in psychiatric treatment seeking and primary care medical samples

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
40
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 63 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
40
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The GADQ-IV has good test–retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and good agreement with diagnostic interviews (Newman et al, 2002; Moore et al, 2014). We used the GADQ-IV as a measure of GAD symptom severity and scored it without the skip structure as reported in Vasey et al (2016) and as recommended by Rodebaugh et al (2008).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…The GADQ-IV has good test–retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and good agreement with diagnostic interviews (Newman et al, 2002; Moore et al, 2014). We used the GADQ-IV as a measure of GAD symptom severity and scored it without the skip structure as reported in Vasey et al (2016) and as recommended by Rodebaugh et al (2008).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…High diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, test-retest reliability, as well as convergent and discriminant validity have been reported (Newman et al, 2002;Robinson, Klenck, & Norton, 2010; α in this sample = .81). To achieve an optimal balance between sensitivity and specificity, the authors suggest a cutoff score of 5.7 based on Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses, while Moore, Anderson, Barnes, Haigh, and Fresco (2014) recently showed a total score of 7.67 to be the more appropriate cutoff in order not to overestimate GAD in primary care.…”
Section: Questionnaire Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The total score on the GAD-Q-IV ranges from 0 to 13. Newman et al (2002) found that a cut score of 5.7 provided a good balance of sensitivity and specificity, and numerous studies have used this cut score to create analogue GAD groups (Moore, Anderson, Barnes, & Haigh, 2014). Group membership based on the 5.7 cut score has shown good stability over a 2-week period and has shown good convergent and discriminant validity (Newman et al, 2002).…”
Section: Measures and Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Group membership based on the 5.7 cut score has shown good stability over a 2-week period and has shown good convergent and discriminant validity (Newman et al, 2002). However, recent research (Moore et al, 2014) has indicated that a more stringent cut score of 7.67 is optimal in that it is better at reducing false positives and identifying "true cases" of probable GAD. Thus, the higher cut score of 7.67 was used in the present study.…”
Section: Measures and Proceduresmentioning
confidence: 99%