Key result
Confirmatory factor analysis of the Chinese version of the HADS in patients with coronary heart disease showed little difference in model fit between three-factor and two-factor models.
Cross-Sectional (n=154)
Yes
The Chinese version of the HADS may not exhibit the dominant tri-dimensional structure seen in European versions among patients with coronary heart disease, showing little difference between two- and three-factor models.
Does not favor two- or three-factor HADS models in Chinese CHD; leaves open optimal structure for screening.
BACKGROUND: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) is a widely used screening tool designed as a case detector for clinically relevant anxiety and depression. Recent studies of the HADS in coronary heart disease (CHD) patients in European countries suggest it comprises three, rather than two, underlying sub-scale dimensions. The factor structure of the Chinese version of the HADS was evaluated in patients with CHD in mainland China. METHODS: Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on self-report HADS forms from 154 Chinese CHD patients. RESULTS: Little difference was observed in model fit between best performing three-factor and two-factor models. CONCLUSION: The current observations are inconsistent with recent studies highlighting a dominant underlying tri-dimensional structure to the HADS in CHD patients. The Chinese version of the HADS may perform differently to European language versions of the instrument in patients with CHD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2006) conducted a cross-sectional in Coronary heart disease (n=154). Chinese version of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was evaluated on Model fit of two-factor versus three-factor structures of the HADS using confirmatory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Chinese version of the HADS in patients with coronary heart disease showed little difference in model fit between three-factor and two-factor models.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: