MARATTO

article · PLoS ONE

Psychometric evaluation of the GHQ-28 in a South African recidivist sample

2026Open accessNorth-West University

Abstract

This study evaluated the psychometric performance of the 28-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) in an archived South African recidivist sample. Data from 385 respondents were examined using item descriptives, corrected item-total correlations, confirmatory factor analysis, internal-consistency estimates, exploratory network analysis, and post hoc reduced-item sensitivity models; the network analysis used 327 complete cases. Among the full-scale models, the correlated four-factor model showed the best relative fit, chi-square(344) = 543.81, CFI = .944, TLI = .939, RMSEA = .042, and SRMR = .105. The elevated SRMR and several negative or weak loadings, however, indicated residual misfit and possible item-direction or scoring problems. Cronbach's alpha was.747 for the total score and ranged from.403 to.733 across the four domains. Anxiety/Insomnia and Severe Depression performed more consistently than Somatic Symptoms and Social Dysfunction. Network results were mixed rather than uniformly convergent with the latent-variable findings. Reduced-item models produced better descriptive fit indices, but they used different item sets, were data-driven, and did not establish a validated short form. Because the original item labels and scoring key were not available for independent verification, domain-level interpretations, especially for Somatic Symptoms and Social Dysfunction, remain provisional. The results provide preliminary support for a multidimensional representation of distress while underscoring the need to verify item direction, reproduce the analyses from the archived code, and replicate the findings in independent correctional samples.

Research topics

  • Mental Health Research Topics
  • Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
  • Personality Disorders and Psychopathology

Read the original research

This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0354025

Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.

Discussion

Discuss this research

Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.

No discussion yet. Open the first thread.