Abstract
Background
Depression and anxiety symptoms among medical students are often a concern. The Patient Health Questionnaire-Four (PHQ-4), an important tool for depression and anxiety screening, is commonly used and easy to administer. This study aimed to assess and update the longitudinal measurement invariance and psychometric properties of the simplified Chinese version.
Methods
A three-wave longitudinal survey was conducted among healthcare students using the PHQ-4. Structural validity was based on one-factor, two-factor, and second-order factor models, construct validity was based on the Self-Rated Health Questionnaire (SRHQ), Sleep Quality Questionnaire (SQQ), and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES), and longitudinal measurement invariance (LMI), internal consistency, and test–retest reliability were based on structural consistency across three time points.
Results
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis indicated that two-factor model was the best fit, and LMI was supported at three time points. Inter-factor, factor-total, and construct validity correlations of the PHQ-4 were acceptable. Additionally, Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, and the intraclass correlation coefficient demonstrated acceptable/moderate to excellent reliability of the PHQ-4.
Conclusions
This study adds new longitudinal evidence that the Chinese version of the PHQ-4 has promising LMI and psychometric properties. Such data lends confidence to the routine and the expanded use of the PHQ-4 for routine screening of depression and anxiety in Chinese healthcare students.
Similar content being viewed by others
Background
The most common mental disorders in both clinical patients and the general population are depression and anxiety, which often co-occur [1,2,3,4,5]. Depression and anxiety account for more than half of mental disorders worldwide [6, 7]. Well known is that the co-occurrence of depression and anxiety is associated with significant disability and symptom severity, such as low back pain, poor social functioning, and multiple sclerosis [8,9,10,11,12].
Depression and anxiety usually first appear in adolescence, some of the symptoms may be acute; however, depression and anxiety can both also be chronic in nature, resulting in a huge public health burden [13,14,15]. Substantial existing evidence indicates a high prevalence of depression and anxiety among healthcare students, with overall levels of psychological distress consistently higher than the general population and peers [16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. The negative impact of psychological distress is far-reaching, which may adversely affect academic performance, decrease empathy, and elevate burnout in healthcare careers [23,24,25].
As such, it is widely accepted that depression and anxiety should be routinely assessed and, if present, first-line treatment should be applied to improve outcomes [26,27,28]. The 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4) has been widely used as a screener due to its ultra-short nature [26, 27]. Consisting of the first two items from the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) to assess depression [27, 29] and the first two items from the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) to measure anxiety [30], the PHQ-4 (i.e., PHQ-2 plus GAD-2) has been translated into several languages including Spanish, German, Greek, and Korean [26, 31,32,33,34,35]. Moreover, the PHQ-4 has been validated in a variety of populations (e.g., patients, students, pregnant women, athletes, and adolescents) [26, 31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43]. Whether in a distinctive cultural background or population setting, the PHQ-4 has demonstrated a stable two-factor structure (comparative fit index [CFI] = 0.990–1.000, Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = 0.980–1.000, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.011–0.080), valid construct validity (adequate convergent and discriminant validity), and good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.720–0.880, McDonald’s omega = 0.850–0.880) [32, 35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. However, there is little evidence that the Chinese cultural adaptation examining whether the PHQ-4 has retained a stable two-factor structure consistent with its design [35]. Only one study could be found that applied the traditional Chinese version of the PHQ-4 among Hong Kong young adults [48]. The measurement properties of the simplified Chinese version are therefore worth discovering [35, 48].
Most importantly, it remains to be seen whether the PHQ-4 displays longitudinal measurement invariance (LMI) [39]. Of the existing evidence, only the Greek version of the PHQ-4 examined repeated surveys to assess its test–retest reliability, yet the LMI was not assessed [34]. As an ultra-short instrument to screen for depression and anxiety, and track changes in these symptoms, LMI is essential to demonstrate that the construct has the same meaning across repeated assessments [27, 34, 49]. Given the specific nature of depression and anxiety, which can occur acutely (e.g., 7 to 21 days) and chronically (e.g., weeks to years), both intervals of short-term and relatively long are worth exploring [11, 50,51,52,53,54].
The purpose of the current study was to address the following questions: 1) is the factor structure of the simplified Chinese PHQ-4 stable as a two-factor model; and 2) would the simplified Chinese PHQ-4 demonstrate adequate LMI across both short- and long-term intervals? Longitudinal measurement invariance and adequate psychometric properties for the PHQ-4 would support continued and future routine and general screening with this tool [11, 26, 39, 51, 52]. Early identification and targeted prevention programs could help to prevent episodes of depression and anxiety in healthcare students [13, 55, 56].
Methods
Study design and participants
A three-wave longitudinal survey was conducted from December 2020 to April 2021 in Hangzhou, China. All healthcare students freely consented to answer the questionnaires. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hangzhou Normal University Division of Health Sciences, China. All procedures followed the relevant ethical tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki [57].
Healthcare students enrolled in medical courses were recruited based on the following inclusion criteria: 1) aged 17–24 years old as undergraduates; 2) not diagnosed with mental disorders; and 3) volunteered to participate in the survey. Excluded participants were primarily: 1) international exchange students who did not fully understand Chinese; and 2) on long-term leave (i.e., ≥ 3 months) for medical internship or suspension. Surveys were administered three times as baseline (T1), one-week follow-up (T2), and 15-week follow-up (T3) to allow for analyses across intervals that mimic real-world need [51,52,53,54, 58, 59].
A total of 637, 616, and 540 participants completed questionnaires at baseline, one-week follow-up, and 15-week follow-up timepoints, respectively. A total of 512 paper–pencil questionnaires were considered valid after matching. The final sample size met basic sample size considerations, which included the following: 1) the sample size should be at least 10 times the number of items in the scale; and 2) the sample size should be higher than 500 considering the estimated ratio of items to factors in the study is 2 [60, 61].
Measures
Patient Health Questionnaire (Chinese Version)
The simplified Chinese version of the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4-SC, retrieved from: https://www.phqscreeners.com; accessed on 29 August 2019) was the focus of the present study [27, 30, 62]. The PHQ-4 consists of two core criteria for depression and another two for anxiety syndrome. Participants respond to the core prompt: “In the past 2 weeks, how often have the following problems bothered you?”, all items (e.g., “Feeling nervous, anxious or on edge”) are scored on a four-point scale marked with 0 (“not at all”), 1 (“several days”), 2 (“more than half the days”), and 3 (“nearly every day”). A higher score on the PHQ-4-SC indicates poorer mental health, with total scores ranging from 0 to 12.
Self-Rated Health Questionnaire (Chinese Version)
The Self-Rated Health Questionnaire (SRHQ) consists of two items measuring physical health and mental health, respectively [49, 63, 64]. Individuals self-report their perceived health status on a five-point Likert scale with response categories of “excellent = 1, good = 2, average = 3, poor = 4, and extremely poor = 5”. The higher the total score on the SRHQ (2 to 10), the better the self-perceived health. The Cronbach’s alpha of the SRHQ were 0.686, 0.672, and 0.750 at baseline, 1-week follow-up, and 15-week follow-up respectively for the current study.
Sleep Quality Questionnaire (Chinese Version)
The Chinese version of the Sleep Quality Questionnaire (SQQ-C) is a self-report scale that measures an individual’s sleep quality with two major subconstructs: daytime sleepiness and sleep disturbance [65, 66]. Using a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (0 to 4), higher scores indicate poorer sleep quality. The SQQ has demonstrated adequate measurement properties in a multi-center study (CFI = 0.903–0.977, TLI = 0.872–0.969, RMSEA = 0.073–0.142; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.712–0.862, McDonald’s omega = 0.723–0.863) [67].
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Chinese Version)
The Chinese version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES-C), one of the most widely used self-esteem instruments in the world, has two core dimensions: 1) positively worded items are scored from 1 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree); and 2) negatively worded items are reversed scored, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree) [68]. After reversing the item scores, the total score ranges from 10 to 40 with higher scores representing higher self-esteem; and the RSES-C demonstrated sound measurement properties [69].
Statistical analysis
All data were assembled in EpiData (version 3.1). R (version 4.2.1) and its compiler RStudio (version 2022.12.0) were used to perform the statistical analysis with the following packages: “MVN”, “lavaan”, “semTools”, and “ufs” [70,71,72,73]. Guided by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology manual and taxonomy of measurement properties, we aim to assess the structural validity, construct validity, longitudinal measurement invariance, and internal consistency of the PHQ-4-SC [74,75,76].
Structural validity
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was first applied to determine whether the two-factor structure is consistent with the original design. The one-factor model (i.e., 4 items loaded on a general factor: psychological distress/functioning) and the two-order factor model (i.e., 2 items loaded on a depression factor and the other 2 items loaded on an anxiety factor) were selected as competing factor structures. An illustration can be found in Figure S1 of Supplementary Material. Weighted least squares mean- and variance-adjusted (WLSMV) estimation was used in all CFA analyses taking into account the ordinal nature of the item scores [77,78,79]. All of the listed competing structures of the PHQ-4-SC were examined by the CFI, TLI, and RMSEA [71, 80,81,82,83]. The goodness-of-fit (GOF) of the PHQ-4-SC was determined by thresholds (CFI ≥ 0.900, TLI ≥ 0.900, and RMSEA ≤ 0.080), the model could be considered the least suitable [83]. The model with the relatively best GOF performances was selected for all subsequent analyses.
Longitudinal measurement invariance
Parameters were progressively constrained to test the LMI of the chosen structural model: configural, threshold, metric, scalar, and strict models (Supplementary Material in Table S1) [49]. The scaled GOF indices (CFI, TLI, and RMSEA) together with their changes (Δ) as absolute values were used to assess LMI: 1) CFI ≥ 0.900, TLI ≥ 0.900, and RMSEA ≤ 0.080 were the least required cut-offs; and 2) |ΔCFI|≤ 0.010, |ΔTLI|≤ 0.010, and |ΔRMSEA|≤ 0.015 were the least required cut-offs. Once two, one, or no GOF indices had Δs found to fall outside the cutoffs, the model judged to be unsupported (marked red), nearly supported (marked yellow), or supported (marked green), respectively [49]. The chi-squared statistic (χ2) and the chi-square change (Δχ2) were also compared between the models as secondary indicators, as they are sensitive to the sample size.
Construct validity
Guided by the COSMIN guidelines, we made the following hypotheses regarding construct validity [84, 85]:
-
1)
The PHQ-4-SC would positively correlate (0.300–0.500) with the SRHQ, as both measure related constructs but the SRHQ tends to focus more on health conditions.
-
2)
The PHQ-4-SC would positively correlate (0.300–0.500) with the SQQ, as both measure related constructs but the SQQ tends to focus more on sleep quality.
-
3)
The PHQ-4-SC would positively correlate (0.300–0.500) with the RSES, as both measure related constructs but the RSES tends to focus more on self-esteem.
All of the three hypotheses (75%) had to be fulfilled for sufficient construct validity.
Internal consistency and test–retest reliability
The ordinal forms of Cronbach’s alpha, McDonald’s omega, and their 95% confidential interval were calculated to assess the internal consistency of the measures [86, 87]. Internal consistency would be considered adequate if both the alpha and omega were greater than or equal to 0.700 [84, 88].
In terms of test–retest reliability, we calculated the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to measure stability across timepoints. An ICC would be considered poor if it was less than 0.500, moderate if it was between 0.500 and 0.750, good if it was between 0.750 and 0.900, or excellent if it was greater than 0.900 [89,90,91]. The standard error of measurement (SEM) was also calculated as an additional indicator of test–retest reliability using the formula “standard deviation × sqrt (1-ICC)” [89].
Results
Sample characteristics
A total of 512 valid participants were included in this study. The mean age of the sample is 20.219 years, and 77.0% were female. The other demographic information and the total score of the PHQ-4-SC are summarized in the Supplementary Material, Table S2.
Structural validity
As expected, the two-factor model of the PHQ-4-SC, as illustrated by CLI, TLI, and RMSEA, outperformed the other tested models (Table 1). All GOF indices showed that both the one-factor (CFI = 0.988–0.993; TLI = 0.965–0.978; RMSEA = 0.168–0.195) and the second-order (CFI = 0.926–0.943; TLI = 0.779–0.828; RMSEA = 0.404–0.534) models did not fit as well as the two-factor model (CFI = 1.000; TLI = 0.998–1.002; RMSEA = 0.000–0.056). Consequently, the two-factor model was selected for further evaluation of the measurement properties of the PHQ-4-SC (Fig. 1).
Longitudinal measurement invariance
On the basis of the chosen two-factor model, we conducted the longitudinal CFA to test the measurement invariance of the PHQ-4-SC across time points. Using the GOF as indicators, the LMI analysis showed that all five models are fully supported as all values (CFI = 0.998–1.000, TLI = 0.998–0.999, and RMSEA = 0.017–0.024) and their changes (|ΔCFI|= 0.000–0.001, |ΔTLI|= 0.000–0.001, and |ΔRMSEA|= 0.000–0.007) fall within the cut-offs and remain in an excellent range (Table 2).
Construct validity
Figure 2 shows the inter-factor, factor-total, and construct validity correlations of the PHQ-4-SC. We found moderate to high inter−factor and factor−total correlations with values ranging from 0.393–0.903. Most of the correlations of the PHQ-4-SC and its subscales with other measures were higher than 0.300. This partially supports the three hypotheses focused on the construct validity of the PHQ-4-SC.
Inter-factor, factor-total, concurrent, and construct correlations between the PHQ, SQQ, and RSES across three time points
Color gradient represents correlation level. Red represents a positive correlation. Purple represents a negative correlation
Abbreviations: Anx anxiety, Dep depression, PHQ Patient Health Questionnaire, Selfphy self-rated physical condition, Selfpsy self-rated psychological condition, Self self-rated health condition, SDS sleep difficulty subscale, DSS daytime sleepiness subscale, SQQ Sleep Quality Questionnaire, Neg negative subscale, Pos positive subscale, RSES Rosenberg Self‑Esteem Scale, T1 Time 1, T2 Time 2, T3 Time 3
Internal consistency and test–retest reliability
We observed a good internal consistency of the PHQ-4-SC with Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.818 to 0.919 and McDonald’s omega values ranging from 0.895 to 0.916 for baseline and follow-up. Similarly, most ICC values showed moderate to good test–retest reliability was shown by ICCs ranging from 0.505 to 0.717. Notably, only the ICC of the depression subscale across baseline and 15-week follow-up was outside the moderate range (ICC = 0.453). Detailed information on the internal consistency and test–retest reliability is provided in Table 3.
Discussion
Overall findings
Evidence of the measurement properties of the PHQ-4-SC from the current study revealed satisfactory performance in terms of structural validity, construct validity, and internal consistency, and of great importance, longitudinal measurement invariance over time. These results demonstrated that the PHQ-4-SC is a valid, reliable, and stable measure of depression and anxiety in the sample of health students.
Structural validity
An identical two-factor structure of the PHQ-4-SC was observed, which is consistent with the original design of the PHQ and with other adaptations of the PHQ-4 [26, 27, 39]. The two subscales made adequate overall contributions to the PHQ-4-SC and have demonstrated the potential for it to support a bifactor model [92,93,94]. Therefore, screening for both depression and anxiety as a combined disorder, rather than either one or the other alone, is also advisable if the bifactor structure is identified in the future [26, 27, 39, 50].
Longitudinal measurement invariance
The LMI, which was the core gap of the PHQ-4 in the Chinese culture, was fully supported and provided the first evidence for the longitudinal application of the PHQ-4 in China. Given that depression and anxiety covary across time points, our design of 1-week and 15-week intervals reveals the possible ability of the PHQ-4-SC to be used for both short terms and long periods [49, 50, 95]. However, it remains unknown whether its cross-sectional measurement invariance (CMI, e.g., gender) could be supported [49]. Further analysis of the CMI on the PHQ-4-SC, which is just as important as the LMI, is needed to complete the whole picture of assessing measurement invariance.
Construct validity
Construct validity was suggested by the results of correlations between the PHQ-4-SC and the other three measures: the SRHQ, SQQ, and RSES. These are analogous to some other international studies and point to the special characteristics of depression and anxiety—as a signal for psychosomatic disorders [39]. However, a missing part of the construct validity is the lack of correlations with instruments measuring similar constructs (e.g., Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale). Completing the missing part of the study would be preferable to fill the gap in assessing the construct validity of the PHQ-4 applied in the Chinese population.
Internal consistency and test–retest reliability
Despite this ultra-short instrument consisting of only four items (two items for both subscales), the internal consistency was more robust than we expected [27]. This may be due to the face validity of the items, which made them easy to understand in Chinese [49, 64]. As for the only non-ideal ICC value, we speculate that this may be due to the long-term interval of 15 weeks—this could reduce the status of the healthcare students when they repeatedly answer the same questionnaire. This phenomenon has also been observed in another similar study [96].
Strengths and limitations
Several strengths should be highlighted. First, to date, this is the first study to evaluate the LMI of the PHQ-4-SC in a sample of the Chinese population, and to assess its use across time points. Second, this is the first study to examine the measurement properties of the PHQ-4-SC with a design including both a short-term and a long-term interval. Last, the study used multiple instruments to examine its construct validity, thus providing initial data for the analysis of risk factors for mental disorders.
Nevertheless, the study also had several limitations. First, we did not assess cross-sectional measurement invariance. Future comparisons between subgroups or characteristics should be made with caution. Second, the bifactor model was not subsequently assessed to confirm the unidimensional properties of the PHQ-4-SC. Further testing of this model would be promising for the proficiency of the overall validity of the PHQ-4-SC. Last, construct validity is the lack of correlations with instruments measuring similar constructs. Researchers are more than welcome to concurrently use other similar instruments to measure depression and anxiety simultaneously.
Conclusion
The factor structure, longitudinal measurement invariance, construct validity, internal consistency, and test–retest reliability of the Chinese version of the PHQ-4 were demonstrated across three waves of measurement. Such evidence lends support for the continued and expanded use of the PHQ-4 as an effective screening instrument in China.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the personal health information of participants needing to be protected but are available (de-identified data) from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Abbreviations
- CFA:
-
confirmatory factor analysis
- CFI:
-
comparative fit index
- CMI:
-
cross-sectional measurement invariance
- COSMIN:
-
COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments
- GAD-2:
-
two-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder
- GOF:
-
goodness-of-fit
- ICC:
-
intraclass correlation coefficient
- LMI:
-
longitudinal measurement invariance
- PHQ-2:
-
two-item Patient Health Questionnaire
- PHQ-4:
-
four-item Patient Health Questionnaire
- RMSEA:
-
root mean square error of approximation
- RSES:
-
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
- SQQ:
-
Sleep Quality Questionnaire
- SRHQ:
-
Self-Rated Health Questionnaire
- TLI:
-
Tucker-Lewis index
- WLSMV:
-
weighted least squares mean and variance adjusted
References
Brown TA, Campbell LA, Lehman CL, Grisham JR, Mancill RB. Current and lifetime comorbidity of the DSM-IV anxiety and mood disorders in a large clinical sample. J Abnorm Psychol. 2001;110(4):585–99.
Kessler RC, Chiu WT, Demler O, Walters EE. Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of 12-month DSM-IV disorders in the national comorbidity survey replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):617–27.
Ansseau M, Dierick M, Buntinkx F, Cnockaert P, De Smedt J, Van Den Haute M, Vander Mijnsbrugge D. High prevalence of mental disorders in primary care. J Affect Disord. 2004;78(1):49–55.
Kessler RC, McGonagle KA, Zhao S, Nelson CB, Hughes M, Eshleman S, Wittchen H-U, Kendler KS. Lifetime and 12-Month Prevalence of DSM-III-R Psychiatric Disorders in the United States: Results From the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1994;51(1):8–19.
Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Kroenke K, Linzer M, deGruy FV, III, Hahn SR, Brody D, Johnson JG,. Utility of a New Procedure for Diagnosing Mental Disorders in Primary Care: The PRIME-MD 1000 Study. JAMA. 1994;272(22):1749–56.
Andrews G, Sanderson K, Slade T, Issakidis C. Why does the burden of disease persist? Relating the burden of anxiety and depression to effectiveness of treatment. Bull World Health Organ. 2000;78(4):446–54.
Liu Q, He H, Yang J, Feng X, Zhao F, Lyu J. Changes in the global burden of depression from 1990 to 2017: Findings from the Global Burden of Disease study. J Psychiatr Res. 2020;126:134–40.
Olfson M, Shea S, Feder A, Fuentes M, Nomura Y, Gameroff M, Weissman MM. Prevalence of anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders in an urban general medicine practice. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9(9):876–83.
Schonfeld WH, Verboncoeur CJ, Fifer SK, Lipschutz RC, Lubeck DP, Buesching DP. The functioning and well-being of patients with unrecognized anxiety disorders and major depressive disorder. J Affect Disord. 1997;43(2):105–19.
Olfson M, Fireman B, Weissman MM, Leon AC, Sheehan DV, Kathol RG, Hoven C, Farber L. Mental disorders and disability among patients in a primary care group practice. Am J Psychiatr. 1997;154(12):1734–40.
Marshall PWM, Schabrun S, Knox MF. Physical activity and the mediating effect of fear, depression, anxiety, and catastrophizing on pain related disability in people with chronic low back pain. PLoS One. 2017;12(7):e0180788.
Peres DS, Rodrigues P, Viero FT, Frare JM, Kudsi SQ, Meira GM, Trevisan G. Prevalence of depression and anxiety in the different clinical forms of multiple sclerosis and associations with disability: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav Immun Health. 2022;24.
Werner-Seidler A, Perry Y, Calear AL, Newby JM, Christensen H. School-based depression and anxiety prevention programs for young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2017;51:30–47.
GBD 2017 DALYs and HALE Collaborators. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet. 2018;392(10159):1859–1922.
Garber J, Weersing VR. Comorbidity of anxiety and depression in youth: implications for treatment and prevention. Clin Psychol Sci Pract. 2010;17(4):293–306.
Tyssen R, Vaglum P, Grønvold NT, Ekeberg O. Suicidal ideation among medical students and young physicians: a nationwide and prospective study of prevalence and predictors. J Affect Disord. 2001;64(1):69–79.
Ball S, Bax A. Self-care in medical education: effectiveness of health-habits interventions for first-year medical students. Acad Med. 2002;77(9):911–7.
Clark DC, Zeldow PB. Vicissitudes of depressed mood during four years of medical school. JAMA. 1988;260(17):2521–8.
Mosley TH Jr, Perrin SG, Neral SM, Dubbert PM, Grothues CA, Pinto BM. Stress, coping, and well-being among third-year medical students. Acad Med. 1994;69(9):765–7.
Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Shanafelt TD. Systematic review of depression, anxiety, and other indicators of psychological distress among U.S. and Canadian medical students. Acad Med. 2006;81(4):354–73.
Parkerson GR Jr, Broadhead WE, Tse CK. The health status and life satisfaction of first-year medical students. Acad Med. 1990;65(9):586–8.
Guo W-P, Min Q, Gu W-W, Yu L, Xiao X, Yi W-B, Li H-L, Huang B, Li J-L, Dai Y-J, et al. Prevalence of mental health problems in frontline healthcare workers after the first outbreak of COVID-19 in China: a cross-sectional study. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19(1):103.
Hojat M, Robeson M, Damjanov I, Veloski JJ, Glaser K, Gonnella JS. Students’ psychosocial characteristics as predictors of academic performance in medical school. Acad Med. 1993;68(8):635–7.
Woloschuk W, Harasym PH, Temple W. Attitude change during medical school: a cohort study. Med Educ. 2004;38(5):522–34.
Crandall SJ, Volk RJ, Loemker V. Medical students’ attitudes toward providing care for the underserved. Are we training socially responsible physicians? JAMA. 1993;269(19):2519–23.
Löwe B, Wahl I, Rose M, Spitzer C, Glaesmer H, Wingenfeld K, Schneider A, Brähler E. A 4-item measure of depression and anxiety: validation and standardization of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2010;122(1):86–95.
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Löwe B. An ultra-brief screening scale for anxiety and depression: the PHQ–4. Psychosomatics. 2009;50(6):613–21.
Arango-Lasprilla JC, Zeldovich M, Christ BR, Ramos-Usuga D, von Steinbuechel N, Perrin PB, Rivera D. Longitudinal measurement invariance of the patient health questionnaire-9 across racial/ethnic groups: results from the traumatic brain injury model system study. Rehabil Psychol. 2024.
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41(11):1284–92.
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Monahan PO, Löwe B. Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(5):317–25.
Mills SD, Fox RS, Pan TM, Malcarne VL, Roesch SC, Sadler GR. Psychometric evaluation of the patient health questionnaire–4 in hispanic Americans. Hisp J Behav Sci. 2015;37(4):560–71.
Cano-Vindel A, Muñoz-Navarro R, Medrano LA, Ruiz-Rodríguez P, González-Blanch C, Gómez-Castillo MD, Capafons A, Chacón F, Santolaya F. A computerized version of the patient health questionnaire-4 as an ultra-brief screening tool to detect emotional disorders in primary care. J Affect Disord. 2018;234:247–55.
Kim H-W, Shin C, Lee S-H, Han C. Standardization of the Korean version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4). Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci. 2021;19(1):104–11.
Christodoulaki A, Baralou V, Konstantakopoulos G, Touloumi G. Validation of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) to screen for depression and anxiety in the Greek general population. J Psychosom Res. 2022;160: 110970.
Caro-Fuentes S, Sanabria-Mazo JP. A systematic review of the psychometric properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 in clinical and nonclinical populations. J Acad Consult Liaison Psychiatr. 2023;65(2):178–94.
MdlF RM, Ruiz-Segovia N, Soto-Balbuena C, Le H-N, Olivares-Crespo ME, Izquierdo-Méndez N. The psychometric properties of the patient health questionnaire-4 for pregnant women. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(20):7583.
Barrera AZ, Moh YS, Nichols A, Le H-N. The factor reliability and convergent validity of the patient health questionnaire-4 among an international sample of pregnant women. J Womens Health. 2021;30(4):525–32.
Elsman EBM, van Munster EPJ, van Nassau F, Verstraten P, van Nispen RMA, van der Aa HPA. Perspectives on implementing the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 in low-vision service organizations to screen for depression and anxiety. Translat Vision Sci Technol. 2022;11(1):16–16.
Wicke FS, Krakau L, Löwe B, Beutel ME, Brähler E. Update of the standardization of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in the general population. J Affect Disord. 2022;312:310–4.
Havnen A, Lydersen S, Mandahl A, Lara-Cabrera ML. Factor structure of the patient health questionnaire-4 in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Front Psychiatr. 2023;14:1176298.
Kazlauskas E, Gelezelyte O, Kvedaraite M, Ajdukovic D, Johannesson KB, Böttche M, Bondjers K, Dragan M, Figueiredo-Braga M, Grajewski P, et al. Psychometric properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) in 9230 adults across seven European countries: findings from the ESTSS ADJUST study. J Affect Disord. 2023;335:18–23.
Adzrago D, Walker TJ, Williams F. Reliability and validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 scale and its subscales of depression and anxiety among US adults based on nativity. BMC Psychiatry. 2024;24(1):213.
Meidl V, Dallmann P, Leonhart R, Bretthauer B, Busch A, Kubosch EJ, Wrobel N, Hirschmüller A. Validation of the patient health questionnaire-4 for longitudinal mental health evaluation in elite Para athletes. PM&R. 2024;16(2):141–9.
Li C, Friedman B, Conwell Y, Fiscella K. Validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire 2 (PHQ-2) in identifying major depression in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55(4):596–602.
Donker T, van Straten A, Marks I, Cuijpers P. Quick and easy self-rating of generalized anxiety disorder: validity of the dutch web-based GAD-7, GAD-2 and GAD-SI. Psychiatry Res. 2011;188(1):58–64.
Delgadillo J, Payne S, Gilbody S, Godfrey C, Gore S, Jessop D, Dale V. Brief case finding tools for anxiety disorders: validation of GAD-7 and GAD-2 in addictions treatment. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012;125(1):37–42.
Wild B, Eckl A, Herzog W, Niehoff D, Lechner S, Maatouk I, Schellberg D, Brenner H, Müller H, Löwe B. Assessing generalized anxiety disorder in elderly people using the GAD-7 and GAD-2 scales: results of a validation study. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2014;22(10):1029–38.
Fong T, Ho R, Yip P. Psychometric properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 among Hong Kong young adults in 2021: associations with meaning in life and suicidal ideation. Front Psych. 2023;14:1138755.
Jiang C, Ma H, Luo Y, Fong DYT, Umucu E, Zheng H, Zhang Q, Liu X, Liu X, Spruyt K, et al. Validation of the Chinese version of the perceived stress scale-10 integrating exploratory graph analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2023;84:194–202.
Mineka S, Watson D, Clark LA. Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Annu Rev Psychol. 1998;49(1):377–412.
Chambless DL, Hollon SD. Defining empirically supported therapies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66(1):7–18.
Sowislo J, Orth U. Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 2012;139:213–40.
Flückiger C, Del Re AC, Munder T, Heer S, Wampold B. Enduring effects of evidence-based psychotherapies in acute depression and anxiety disorders versus treatment as usual at follow-up - A longitudinal meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2014;34(5):367–75.
Downey L, Hayduk LA, Curtis JR, Engelberg RA. Measuring depression-severity in critically Ill patients’ families with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ): tests for unidimensionality and longitudinal measurement invariance, with implications for CONSORT. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016;51(5):938–46.
Calear AL, Christensen H. Systematic review of school-based prevention and early intervention programs for depression. J Adolesc. 2010;33(3):429–38.
Merry SN, Hetrick SE, Cox GR, Brudevold-Iversen T, Bir JJ, McDowell H. Psychological and educational interventions for preventing depression in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12.
World Medical Association. World medical association declaration of helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.
Santini ZI, Jose PE, York Cornwell E, Koyanagi A, Nielsen L, Hinrichsen C, Meilstrup C, Madsen KR, Koushede V. Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and symptoms of depression and anxiety among older Americans (NSHAP): a longitudinal mediation analysis. Lancet Public Health. 2020;5(1):e62–70.
Moehring A, Guertler D, Krause K, Bischof G, Rumpf H-J, Batra A, Wurm S, John U, Meyer C. Longitudinal measurement invariance of the patient health questionnaire in a German sample. BMC Psychiatry. 2021;21(1):386.
Everitt BS. Multivariate analysis: the need for data, and other problems. Br J Psychiatry. 1975;126(3):237–40.
Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. Int J Test. 2005;5(2):159–68.
Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Group atPHQPCS. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MDThe PHQ primary care study. JAMA. 1999;282(18):1737–44.
Zhu Y, Jiang C, Yang Y, Dzierzewski JM, Spruyt K, Zhang B, Huang M, Ge H, Rong Y, Ola BA, et al. Depression and anxiety mediate the association between sleep quality and self-rated health in healthcare students. Behav Sci. 2023;13(2):82.
Jiang C, Mastrotheodoros S, Zhu Y, Yang Y, Hallit S, Zhao B, Fan Y, Huang M, Chen C, Ma H, et al. The Chinese version of the perceived stress questionnaire-13: psychometric properties and measurement invariance for medical students. Psychol Res Behav Manag. 2023;16:71–83.
Meng R. Development and evaluation of the Chinese version of the Sleep Quality Questionnaire (doctoral dissertation in Chinese). Wuhan University; 2020.
Kato T. Development of the sleep quality questionnaire in healthy adults. J Health Psychol. 2014;19(8):977–86.
Meng R, Kato T, Mastrotheodoros S, Dong L, Fong DYT, Wang F, Cao M, Liu X, Yao C, Cao J, et al. Adaptation and validation of the Chinese version of the Sleep Quality Questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2023;32(2):569–82.
Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-Iimage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1965.
Jiang C, Zhu Y, Luo Y, Tan CS, Mastrotheodoros S, Costa P, Chen L, Guo L, Ma H, Meng R. Validation of the Chinese version of the rosenberg self-esteem scale: evidence from a three-wave longitudinal study. BMC Psychol. 2023;11(1):345.
Korkmaz S, Goksuluk D, Zararsiz G. MVN: an R package for assessing multivariate normality. R J. 2014;6(2):151–62.
Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1–36.
Svetina D, Rutkowski L, Rutkowski D. Multiple-group invariance with categorical outcomes using updated guidelines: an illustration using Mplus and the lavaan/semTools packages. Struct Equ Model. 2019;27(1):111–30.
Peters G-J: ufs package (0.4.3). 2021. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ufs/ufs.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN taxonomy of measurement properties. 2018. https://www.cosmin.nl/. Accessed 15 Nov.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB: COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)-user manual. 2018. https://www.cosmin.nl/. Accessed 15 Nov.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, Bouter LM, de Vet HCW. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.
DiStefano C, Morgan GB. A Comparison of Diagonal Weighted Least Squares Robust Estimation Techniques for Ordinal Data. Struct Equ Modeling. 2014;21(3):425–38.
Flora DB, Curran PJ. An Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Methods of Estimation for Confirmatory Factor Analysis With Ordinal Data. Psychol Methods. 2004;9(4):466–91.
Wu H, Estabrook R. Identification of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models of Different Levels of Invariance for Ordered Categorical Outcomes. Psychometrika. 2016;81(4):1014–45.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson New International Edition. 7th ed. London: Pearson Higher Education; 2014.
McDonald RP, Ho MH. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(1):64–82.
Satorra A, Bentler PM. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika. 2001;66(4):507–14.
Hu Lt, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model. 1999;6(1):1–55.
DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ, Savoy SM, Kostas-Polston E. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39(2):155–64.
Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1147–57.
Zumbo B, Gadermann A, Zeisser C. Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for likert rating scales. J Mod Appl Stat Methods. 2007;6(1):21–9.
Crutzen R, Peters G-JY. Scale quality: alpha is an inadequate estimate and factor-analytic evidence is needed first of all. Health Psychol Rev. 2017;11(3):242–7.
Cho E, Kim S. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: well known but poorly understood. Organ Res Methods. 2015;18(2):207–30.
Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–40.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):34–42.
Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.
Ten Berge JMF, Sočan G. The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika. 2004;69(4):613–25.
Gagne P, Hancock GR. Measurement model quality, sample size, and solution propriety in confirmatory factor models. Multivar Behav Res. 2006;41(1):65–83.
Rodriguez A, Reise S, Haviland M. Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychol Methods. 2015;21(2):137–50.
MacLeod C, Mathews A. Cognitive bias modification approaches to anxiety. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2012;8(1):189–217.
Huang M, Ma H, Spruyt K, Dzierzewski JM, Jiang C, He J, Yang N, Ying Y, Ola BA, Meng R. Assessing psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the Sleep Quality Questionnaire among healthcare students. BMC Psychol. 2023;12(1):41.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate Ted C. T. Fong (PhD, Research Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, The University of Hong Kong) for helpful information during the revision process. The authors would like to thank two reviewers and the editor for their excellent comments and suggestions. The authors would like to thank the study participants and the research assistants for their time.
Funding
This study was supported by the Medical Research Fund of Zhejiang Province, Grant No. 2023RC073 and the Research Initiation Fund of Hangzhou Normal University, Grant No. RWSK20201003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RM: Conceptualization, Data Curation, Funding Acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. CJ: Data Curation, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. JMD, HM, YL, and KS: Methodology, Validation, Writing - Review & Editing. YZ, MW, NY, XL, LG, YP, CZ, JX, WZ, XW, and LL: Validation, Writing - Review & Editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hangzhou Normal University Division of Health Sciences, China (Reference No. 20190076). All procedures followed the relevant ethical tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all healthcare students before they were included in the survey. The authors confirmed full respect and protection of individual privacy rights before, during and after the data collection and processing.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Meng, R., Jiang, C., Dzierzewski, J.M. et al. Longitudinal measurement invariance and psychometric properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire-Four in China. BMC Psychiatry 24, 517 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05873-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05873-2