The Use of Screening Questionnaires by Family Doctors

  • David Goldberg


The General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) was designed to enable family doctors in London to screen patients in order to identify those with minor psychiatric illnesses. Such was my concern to capture the most telling phraseology for Londoners, that important items — such as those concerned with headache, tension and depressed mood — were tried in several different versions. In each case, the wording that produced the best discrimination between calibration groups was selected. This produced an instrument which worked well for Londoners,1 and the author was pleasantly surprised to find that it worked fairly well in an American city after some of the items had been reworded to suit the local vernacular.2 It had been designed to work well in a particular cultural setting yet it worked only slightly less well in a very different one.


Sickness Absence Primary Care Setting General Health Questionnaire Validity Coefficient General Health Questionnaire Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. Goldberg and B. Blackwell, Psychiatric illness in general practice, B.M.J., 2: 439–443 (1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    D. Goldberg, The detection of psychiatric illness by questionnaire, Maudsley Mdno., No. 21, OUPGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Finlay-Jones and E. Murphy, Severity of psychiatric disorder and the GHQ-30, Brit. J. Psychiat., 134: 606–616 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Tarnopolsky, D. Hand, E. MacLean, H. Roberts, R. Wiggins, Validity and uses of a screening questionnaire in the community. Brit. J. Psychiat., 134: 505–515 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Goldberg and V. Hillier, A scaled version of the GHQ, Psychol. Med., 9: 139–145 (1979)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Nott and S. Cutts, Validation of the GHQ-30 in post-partum women, Psychol. Med., 9: 139–145 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Banks, Validation of the GHQ in a young community, Psychol. Med., 3: 349–354 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Benjamin, P. Decalmer, D. Haran, Community screening for mental illness: A validity study of the GHQ, Brit. J. Psychiat., 150: 174–180Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. Maguire, D. Julier, K. E. Hawton, J. H. J. Bancroft, Psychiatric screening in general practice, Lancet, 1: 605–608 (1974)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. H. Mann, The psychological effect of a screening programme and clinical trial for hypertension upon the participants, Psychol. Med., 7: 431–438 (1977)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Newson Smith and S. Hirsch, Psychiatric symptoms in self poisoning patients, Psychol. Med., 9: 493–500 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    R. Jenkins, A. MacDonald, J. Murray, G. Strathdee, Minor psychiatric morbidity and threat of redundancy in a professional group, Psychol. Med., 12: 799–808 (1982)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    R. Jenkins, Minor psychiatric morbidity in employed men and women and its contribution to sickness absence, Psychol. Med., 10: 751–758 (1980)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Bridges, Psychiatric illness on a neurolcgical ward, M.Sc dissertation, University of Manchester (1983)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Finlay-Jones and B. Eckhardt, Psychiatric disorders among the young unemployed, Austr. N.Z. J. Psychiat., 15 265–270 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Henderson, P. Duncan-Jones, D. Byrne, R. Scott, S. Adcock, Psychiatric disorders in Canberra - A standardised study of prevalence, Acta Psych. Scand., 60: 355–374 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The GHQ - A valid index of psychological impairment in Australian populations, Med. J. Austr., 2: 392–394 (1977)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Duncan-Jones and S. Henderson, The use of a two stage design in a prevalence survey, Soc. Psychiat., 13: 231–237 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    D. Goldberg, K. Rickels, R. Downing and P. Hesbacher, A comparison of two psychiatric screening tests, Brit. J. Psychiat., 129: 61–67 (1976)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    E. Hoeper, G. Nyez, P. Cleary, D. Regier and I. Goldberg, Estimated prevalence of ROC mental disorder in primary medical care, Int. J. Ment. Health, 8: 6–15 (1979)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Rabins and B. Brook, Emotional disturbance in MS patients: validity of the GHQ, Psychol. Med., 11: 425 (1981)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. Robinson and T. Price, Post-stroke depressive disorders: a follow-up study of 103 patients, Stroke, 13: 635–641 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Medina-Mora, G. Padilla, C. Campillo-Serrano, C. Mas, M. Ezban, J. Carevo, J. Corona, The factor structure of the GHQ - A scaled version for a general practice service in Mexico, Psychol. Med., 13: 355–362 (1983)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. Vazquez-Barquero, J. Padierno Acero, C. Pena, A. Ochoteco, The psychiatric manifestations of coronary pathology: validity of the GHQ-60 as a screening instrument, Submitted to Social Psychiatry (1983)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Katschnig, W. Berner, H. Haushofer, M. Berfuss, P. Seelig, Psychiatric case identification in general practice: self-rating versus interview, Acta Psych. Scand. Supp. 285 62: 164–175 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    D. Chan and T. Chan, Reliability, validity and structure of the GHQ in a Chinese context, Psychol. Med., 13: 363–372 (1983)PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    J. Stefannson and I. Kristjansson, A comparison of the GHQ and the CMI, Submitted to Acta. Psychiat. Scand. (1983)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    V. N. Bagadia, et al, WHO project on effects of psychotropic drugs in different populations: WHO reports MNP./77.8 and MNH/78. 6 (1975)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    T. W. Harding, Validating a method of psychiatric case identification in Jamaica, WHO Bull. 54 (2): 225–231 (1976)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    National Institute of Mental Health, Ichikara, Japan. A translation of Goldberg’s Maudsley Monograph into Japanese together with validation studies in Nigeria, India and Japan (1982)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Z. Radanovic and L. Eric, Validity of the GHQ in a Yugoslav student population, Psychol. Med., 13: 205–208 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    P. Munoz, J. Vazquez, E. Pastrana, F. Rodriguez, C. Oueca, A study of the validity of Goldberg’s GHQ in its Spanish version, Soc. Psychiat. 13: 99–104 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    H. Witkin and D. Goodenough, Field Dependence and interpersonal behaviour, Psych. Bull., 84 (4): 661–689 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    K. Parkes, Field dependence and the factor structures of the GHQ in normal subjects, Brit. J. Psychiat., 133: 306–315 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Goldberg
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ManchesterEngland

Personalised recommendations