Internal Validity and Reliability of the GAD-7 Test in Latin America

Abstract

Generalized anxiety has significantly increased in the general population during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the need for rapid screening tools. In this context, the present study analyzed the psychometric properties and internal consistency of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) in healthcare workers and the general population in Latin America. A cross-sectional e-health study was conducted, surveying 11,279 Latin Americans online using snowball sampling. The sample included healthcare professionals, hospital populations, community members from various occupations, and university students from six countries (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Colombia, and Peru). Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) were performed separately for each country. Additionally, the instrument's internal consistency was evaluated by calculating McDonald's W index and item-total correlations based on the final items. The EFA revealed a unidimensional structure comprising the seven items of the instrument, which explained between 62.8% and 66.1% of the variance (KMO = between .900 and .910; p < .000). The CFA confirmed adequate fit indices for each country. The omega index ranged from 0.85 (Peru: CI = 0.800-0.884) to 0.95 (Argentina-Bolivia: CI = 0.901-0.985), and item-total correlations were high, ranging from .642 to .869, demonstrating the instrument's reliability. In conclusion, the findings of this study indicate that the GAD-7 is a valid and reliable instrument for assessing generalized anxiety symptoms in the Latin American population.

Keywords

GAD-7 generalized anxiety disorder psychometric properties latin American general population internal validity and reliability

Introduction

Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) manifests itself with excessive anticipatory and persistent worry about various events; it is usually accompanied by restlessness, irritability, muscle tension, nervousness, sleep, and cognitive disturbances.^1,2 Its etiology is unknown, but it seems to be associated with specific genetic and environmental predispositions.³

The COVID-19 pandemic severely impacted mental health globally, leading to a significant increase in the prevalence of disorders such as Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD).^4-6 Various studies have reported high rates of anxiety, reaching 30.5% among healthcare professionals⁷ and between 31.4% and 36.9% in the general population.⁸ Although the figures for younger individuals were lower (20.5% to 25.2%), they remained alarming.⁸ This increase underscored the urgent need for reliable and rapid tools to identify GAD and its association with other psychiatric disorders, given its clinical and social significance.^5,9

A crucial factor in the development and persistence of GAD is chronic stress, defined as an aversive emotional state caused by prolonged exposure to threatening conditions.¹⁰ This type of stress not only increases the allostatic load, affecting multiple biological systems such as the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis, but is also linked to psychiatric comorbidities, functional impairment, and a higher risk of suicide.¹¹ During the pandemic, chronic stress acted as a global catalyst,¹² exacerbating anxiety levels and highlighting the need to understand its effects better and implement effective strategies for its detection and management.

In this context, the available evidence has highlighted the performance of various instruments designed to quickly and reliably identify Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD). Among them, the GAD-7, consisting of seven questions, has been established as an effective tool for briefly and accurately assessing generalized anxiety symptoms over the past two weeks.^13,14

Although previous studies have analyzed the psychometric properties of the GAD-7 in different populations, most of this research has focused on Europe and North America.^15-23 That has left a significant gap in regions like Latin America, where unique cultural, social, and economic factors may influence the manifestation and assessment of GAD. In this regard, we consider this to be the first study to examine the psychometric properties of the GAD-7 in a large and diverse sample from six Latin American countries, representing a significant contribution to the literature on anxiety in this region.

In response to the alarming increase in mental disorders during and after the pandemic, this study focuses on analyzing the psychometric properties of the GAD-7 in a large and representative sample from Latin America. This analysis aims to provide essential evidence on its applicability in diverse cultural contexts, expanding the understanding of GAD in historically underrepresented populations.

Materials and Method

An e-Health Study 52 was conducted, using a snowball sampling methodology, collecting 11 279 online questionnaires from a large Latin American sample between 2022 and 2023. Through a snowball methodology and using social networks and personal and institutional e-mails, the general population over 18 years of age in 6 countries in the region (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Chile, Colombia, and Peru) were invited to complete a Google form. The average age of the participants was 31.57 years (SD = 19.81); 52.4.6% female and 47.8% male. Of the participants, 22.6% were healthcare personnel, followed by other professions (19.3%), university students (17.6%), the general population (26.1%) and outpatients (14.4%).

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, an international research consortium focused on analyzing the mental health of the general population in Latin America and the Caribbean. Inter-institutional agreements were made, a working group was consolidated, and a research team was trained in each member country of the study. Then, institutional mailing databases were collected; subsequently, the online questionnaire was sent by e-mail, social networks, and WhatsApp, and it was requested to be disseminated among the community. Measurements began on May 12, 2022, and ended on November 27, 2023.

Instrument

An automated Google form was used to inform the study's objective, informed consent, 10 demographic questions, and the GAD-7 test 53. This is a brief and quick administration test; it has seven items that favor the early detection of generalized anxiety from the DSM-V criteria 54. Its score ranges from 0 to 3 for each item, with the response options being “Never” “Several days” “More than half of the days” and “Almost every day”. The GAD-7 total score can range from 0 to 21, with a score ≥10 indicating a generalized anxiety disorder; it also allows grading the severity of the disorder.

Stadistical Analyses

Construct validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). EFA was conducted following the sampling adequacy criteria of KMO and Bartlett's test of sphericity, using the non-orthogonal Oblimin method. CFA was performed using the weighted least squares method adjusted for mean and variance (WLSMV).

For goodness-of-fit evaluation, the following indicators were employed: the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA ≥ .900), the general fit index (GFI ≥ .900), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR > .050), the normalized fit index (NFI ≥ .950), and the relative fit index (RFI ≥ .950) (17). Additionally, the normalized parsimonious fit index (PNFI ≥ .500) and the parsimonious goodness-of-fit index (PGFI ≥ .500) were included.

Lastly, the instrument's internal consistency was analyzed using McDonald's W index and item-total correlations, with a minimum required value of .300. All analyses were performed using the R software, version 1.3.1056.

Formal Aspects

The ethical standards established in the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, revised in 2008, were followed. All participants provided their informed consent digitally. Upon accessing the link to the virtual questionnaire, each participant reviewed the study's objectives and, after providing their consent, completed the form.

Participants did not receive financial compensation for their participation. However, they were provided with a results report accompanied by a guide containing clinical guidelines for addressing anxiety. The online evaluation of the instrument took approximately 2 min.

This international and multicenter research project was developed under the coordination of an interinstitutional consortium led by Universidad de La Costa (Barranquilla, Colombia). The project received ethical approval under code No. 089-2021 and is registered with the research code INV.140-02-004-15.

Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive mean, standard deviation, kurtosis, asymmetry, and confidence intervals based on the mean of the items comprising the GAD-7 scale administered in the 6 Latin American countries. The means ranged from 0.95 (Peru, Item 5) to 1.59 (Bolivia, Item 4). Likewise, the skewness and kurtosis values ranged from −2 to +2, suggesting that the items follow approximately normal distributions.

Table 1.

Descriptives of the GAD-7 Test.

Items	Countries	M^a	SD^b	Kurtosis	Asymmetry	Confidence Interval
Items	Countries	M^a	SD^b	Kurtosis	Asymmetry	Lower.L^c	Upper L.^d
1	Argentina	1,41	0,91	−0,78	0,12	1,34	1,47
	Bolivia	1,40	,088	−0,76	0,09	1,33	1,41
	Chile	1,44	0,92	−0,79	0,17	1,38	1,5
	Colombia	1,25	0,84	−0,54	0,34	1,08	1,17
	Ecuador	1,33	0,87	−0,58	0,25	1,27	1,39
	Perú	1,29	0,92	−0,79	0,23	1,22	1,35
2	Argentina	1,2	0,9	−0,74	0,28	1,14	1,27
	Bolivia	1,15	0,87	−0,15	0,59	1.08	1,20
	Chile	1,18	0,9	−0,6	0,39	1,12	1,24
	Colombia	1,01	0,85	−0426	0,43	0,98	1,13
	Ecuador	1,12	0,86	−0,51	0,39	1,07	1,18
	Perú	0,99	0,88	−0,23	0,67	0,92	1,05
3	Argentina	1,43	0,95	−0,85	0,16	1,36	1,49
	Bolivia	1,14	0,82	−0,13	0,58	1,03	1,29
	Chile	1,47	0,9	−0,78	0	1,41	1,53
	Colombia	1,38	0,87	−0,64	0,18	1,28	1,42
	Ecuador	1,42	0,9	−0,79	0,04	1,36	1,48
	Perú	1,28	0,96	−1,04	0,10	1,21	1,36
4	Argentina	1,58	0,95	−0,92	0,22	1,51	1,65
	Bolivia	1,59	0,93	−0,83	0,18	1,47	1,63
	Chile	1,57	0,96	−0,97	0,02	1,51	1,64
	Colombia	1,47	0,96	−0,16	0,21	1,39	1,56
	Ecuador	1,53	0,88	−0,74	0,11	1,47	1,59
	Perú	1,46	0,98	−1,02	0,07	1,38	1,53
5	Argentina	1,13	0,87	−0,64	0,32	1,07	1,19
	Bolivia	1,14	0,91	−0,73	0,42	1,08	1,22
	Chile	1,16	0,91	−0,71	0,36	1,1	1,22
	Colombia	1,06	0,90	−0,48	0,60	0,98	1,16
	Ecuador	1,09	0,84	−0,27	0,5	1,04	1,15
	Perú	0,95	0,86	−0,34	0,60	0,89	1,01
6	Argentina	1,41	0,93	−0,82	0,17	1,35	1,48
	Bolivia	1,25	0,90	−0,79	0,31	1,17	1,40
	Chile	1,44	0,95	−0,87	0,24	1,38	1,5
	Colombia	1,51	0,92	−0,79	0,29	1,39	1,50
	Ecuador	1,34	0,91	−0,7	0,28	1,28	1,4
	Perú	1,25	0,94	−0,72	0,37	1,18	1,33
7	Argentina	1,32	1,01	−1,03	0,22	1,25	1,39
	Bolivia	1,44	1,09	−1,02	0,19	1,38	1,53
	Chile	1,33	1,03	−1,09	0,23	1,26	1,4
	Colombia	1,35	0,91	−0,82	0,31	1,29	1,48
	Ecuador	1,3	0,98	−0,94	0,25	1,24	1,37
	Perú	1,18	1,05	−1,00	0,45	1,10	1,26

Abbreviation:

M = Mean

SD = Standard Deviation

Lower.P = Lower Limit

Upper. L = Upper Limit.

Exploratory Factor Analysis

The statistical analysis determined a unidimensional structure, made up of the 7 items, in each of the countries where the GAD-7 was administered. Furthermore, in Argentina, the test explained 63.34% of the variance of the data (KMO = .906; p < .000); in Bolivia, it was 65.71% (KMO = .914; p < .000); in Chile, 64.44% (KMO = .917; p = .000); in Colombia, it was 62.84% (KMO = .910; p = .000); in Ecuador, the variance explained was 64.81% (KMO = .925; p < .000) and in Peru, 66.1% (KMO = .900; p < .000), respectively. The factor loadings of most of the items exceeded .720, complying with Stevens’ recommendations 55.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We observed that the root mean square error of approximation of population values (RMSEA = .061), the general fit index (GFI = .998) and the adjusted general fit index (aGFI = .995) have good goodness-of-fit values, as does the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR = .058). In the comparative incremental means of fit, the normalized fit index and relative fit index have higher values (NFI = .998; RFI = .998); providing a percentage increase in goodness-of-fit over the base or null model. In the parsimony fit means, adequate results are obtained, the normalized parsimonic fit index (PNFI = 0.665) and the parsimonic goodness-of-fit index (PGFI = 0.553). Table 2 shows the factor loadings and communalities for the 7 items of the GAD-7. The factor shows factor loadings ranging from .66 to .92.

Table 2.

Internal Consistency, Factor Loadings and Communalities of GAD 7.

Items	Countries	ME^a	SD^b	Item-total correlation	Factorial loading	Community
1. ¿In the last 15 days, have you had feelings of nervousness, anxiety, nervousness?	Argentina	1,41	0,91	,840**	.86	0,73
	Bolivia	1,40	0,88	,836**	.84	.73
	Chile	1,44	0,92	,841**	.87	0,75
	Colombia	1,25	0,84	,729**	.90	0,77
	Ecuador	1,33	0,87	,837**	.85	0,71
	Perú	1,29	0,92	,700**	.78	0,73
2. ¿In the last 15 days, have you been unable to avoid or control your worries?	Argentina	1,20	0,90	,842**	.92	0,82
	Bolivia	1,15	0,87	,847**	.89	0,80
	Chile	1,47	0,90	,842**	.89	0,79
	Colombia	1,01	0,85	,642**	.89	0,69
	Ecuador	1,12	0,86	,839**	.84	0,7
	Perú	0,99	0,88	,805**	.77	0,78
3. ¿In the last 15 days, have you been excessively worried about different things or situations?	Argentina	1,43	0,95	,807**	.84	0,71
	Bolivia	1,14	0,82	,868**	.88	.79
	Chile	1.47	0,90	,812**	.83	0,69
	Colombia	1,38	0,87	,703**	.91	0,77
	Ecuador	1,42	0,90	,811**	.85	0,72
	Perú	1,28	0,96	,698**	.77	0,79
4. ¿In the last 15 days have you had difficulty relaxing?	Argentina	1,58	0,95	,871**	.88	0,76
	Bolivia	1,59	0,93	,854**	.89	.88
	Chile	1,57	0,96	,869**	.90	0,81
	Colombia	1,47	0,96	,782**	.93	0,87
	Ecuador	1,53	0,88	,862**	.90	0,82
	Perú	1,46	0,98	,832**	.91	0,79
5. ¿In the last 15 days have you been so restless that you cannot sit still?	Argentina	1,13	0,87	,822**	.82	0,66
	Bolivia	1,14	0,91	,841**	.85	.80
	Chile	1,16	0,91	,827**	.85	0,72
	Colombia	1,06	0,90	,837**	.84	0,74
	Ecuador	1,09	0,84	,816**	.82	0,67
	Perú	0,95	0,86	,801**	.70	0,71
6. ¿In the last 15 days, have you been easily angered or irritable?	Argentina	1,41	0,93	,700**	.72	0,49
	Bolivia	1,25	0,90	,696**	.68	.51
	Chile	1,44	0,95	,703**	.68	0,46
	Colombia	1,51	0,92	,699**	.78	0,72
	Ecuador	1,34	0,91	,692**	.68	0,46
	Perú	1,25	0,94	,691**	.74	0,46
7. ¿In the last 15 days have you felt afraid, as if something bad might happen?	Argentina	1,32	1,01	,702**	.68	0,45
	Bolivia	1,44	1,09	,812**	.81	.69
	Chile	1,33	1,03	,703**	.66	0,44
	Colombia	1,35	0,91	,686**	.90	0,72
	Ecuador	1,30	0,98	,701**	.79	0,61
	Perú	1,18	1,05	,830**	.89	0,58

Abbreviation:

= p < .000

ME = Mean

SD = Standard Deviation

Finally, taking into account the AFE and AFC models, internal consistency analysis was performed by country; showing values of 0.85 in Peru (CI = 0.800-0.884); 0.88 in Chile (CI = 0.861-0.913); 0.89 in Colombia (CI = 0.867-0.933) and Ecuador (CI = 0.892-0.943); and, finally, 0.95 in Argentina (CI = 0.911-0.985) and Bolivia (CI = 0.901-0.975). Thus, it was found that the Omega index ranged between 0.85 (C. I = 0.800-0.884) and 0.95 (C. I = 0.901-0.985); which means that the scale is reliable. The item-total correlations show a range from .642 to .869 (Table 2).

Discussion

This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the GAD-7 to identify symptoms of generalized anxiety in a large Latin American sample. First, we found that the instrument demonstrated good psychometric performance in each country where it was used. Each item in the instrument showed adequate factor loadings and good saturation levels, with no item displaying low communalities (range 0.46-0.88). These results confirm that the GAD-7 is a unidimensional instrument, with all items aimed at the objective assessment of generalized anxiety. This has been demonstrated in various global^24-35 and regional studies.^36-40

The available evidence supports that the GAD-7 is a clinically valuable instrument, applicable in a variety of contexts. In South American countries, it has been used to detect GAD in healthcare professionals in Colombia and Bolivia during the COVID-19 pandemic,^36,40 in otolaryngology specialists in Hispanic America,⁴¹ and in patients from public hospitals in Ecuado.⁴² Additionally, it has been evaluated in Chilean adolescents,⁴³ Peruvian university students, and the general population,^44,45 as well as in a large sample of adults and older adults in Argentina.⁴⁶ These studies demonstrate the validity and reliability of the GAD-7 for detecting anxiety in various population contexts, corroborating similar findings reported in other countries and continents.^19-23

In the context of rural and intercultural populations, the GAD-7 was recently adapted linguistically, along with an analysis of its psychometric indicators in an urban Quechua-speaking population in Peru.⁴⁷ This study confirmed the unidimensionality of the instrument and reported solid internal consistency values (α = 0.896; ω = 0.894). Building on this, our research group⁴⁸ was the first to report the diagnostic accuracy of the GAD-7 in identifying generalized anxiety symptoms in a clinical sample consisting of a rural Quechua-speaking indigenous population in the same country. In this case, with a cutoff score of 11 points, the GAD-7 demonstrated excellent sensitivity (92.56%) and specificity (89.35%) values. These findings underscore that the items of the GAD-7 are clear, comprehensible, and invariant, ensuring its applicability in both urban contexts and rural or intercultural settings.^49,50

The GAD-7 has also been used to detect other anxiety disorders due to its ability to evaluate long-term changes in symptoms, including post-traumatic stress disorder, social anxiety, and panic disorder.⁵¹ In a large sample of English patients with various psychiatric disorders, the GAD-7 proved to be an effective tool for identifying the severity of anxious symptoms, unaffected by racial, demographic, or cultural characteristics.⁵² Similarly, Doi et al⁵³ analyzed the performance of the GAD-7 in a Japanese adult population with anxiety and depressive disorders, demonstrating its cross-cultural validity. The results indicated that the instrument's factor loadings were equivalent to those of the original version and that the items’ behavior remained stable, with no significant differences between groups with and without anxiety or between those with anxiety and major depression.

On the other hand, the GAD-7 demonstrated strong internal consistency across the analyzed countries, with Omega indices ranging from .88 to .95. These findings confirm that the GAD-7 is a reliable instrument for detecting generalized anxiety without the need to reduce or eliminate items. This is consistent with scientific evidence from various context,^54-56 supporting its reliability and validity for assessing GAD symptoms. Several studies in Latin America reinforce this perspective. For instance, in workers from diverse organizations in Puerto Rico³⁸ and Colombian physicians during the COVID-19 pandemic, the GAD-7 showed high reliability values (.92).³⁶ In a large sample of Argentinians, construct validity, internal consistency, and external validity were assessed, achieving high fit indices (IFI, NNFI, and CFI above .99) and strong internal consistency (α = .88; Ꞷ = .92).⁴⁶ Similarly, Chilean adolescents from private subsidized schools reported a Cronbach's alpha of .86 and a Spearman-Brown coefficient of .82.⁴³ Together, evidence from other languages and cultural contexts further supports the existence of optimal psychometric indicators for the GAD-7.^14,49,57-60

The GAD-7 is an extremely efficient instrument that, with only 7 items and less than one minute of application, allows for the identification of anxiety symptoms and comorbid conditions, making it a highly valuable clinical tool. However, there are other tests with adequate psychometric indicators, such as the COVID Anxiety Scale,⁶¹ the Anxiety Symptoms Questionnaire (ASQ),⁶² or the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).⁶³ While these tools are useful, many require significantly more administration time or lack the clinical specificity necessary for accurate diagnosis. In contrast, the GAD-7, in addition to being quick and objective, has been validated across various contexts, languages, and populations.^45,64,65

Despite the positive results, this study has some limitations. First, although we evaluated a large sample of participants from the region, the sampling was not probabilistic, which affects the generalization of the results. Secondly, the premorbid health status of the participants was not known, nor was it possible to include clinical samples to establish case-control comparisons or establish causal relationships. However, in our opinion, the most important limitation is that no invariance analysis was performed according to sex and country, to provide more evidence in favor of the test. Although these data will be revealed in another study, it is important to highlight the importance of showing adequate test behavior in each country comprising the general population.

Therefore, we can conclude that the GAD-7 is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing generalized anxiety symptoms across diverse cultural contexts in Latin America. Its brevity and efficiency make it a valuable tool for both clinical and research settings, particularly in regions with limited mental health resources. Future research should focus on exploring its applicability in underrepresented populations, such as indigenous communities, rural areas, and economically vulnerable groups, to enhance its cultural adaptability. However, its implementation faces challenges, including the need for additional cultural adaptations and the limited availability of trained mental health professionals. Addressing these barriers will be crucial to maximizing its impact in the region.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to all participants who contributed to the development of this study, which allowed the validation of an instrument for the timely detection of symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder.

Author Contributions

Norman López was responsible for methodology, conceptualization, writing, review and editing, as well as funding acquisition. Breiner Morales-Asencio contributed to methodology and writing. Daniela Ripoll-Córdoba participated in methodology and writing of the original draft. Juancarlos Coronado-López contributed to conceptualization and resources. Nicole Caldichoury-Obando worked on methodology and writing of the original draft. César Quispe-Ayala also participated in formal analysis and data curation. David Salazar was responsible for visualization and software. Yuliana Florez provided supervision and resources, while Irina Florez-Poma contributed to visualization and software. Cesar Castellanos collaborated in supervision and resources. Jorge Herrera-Pino handled project administration and supervision. Indalecio Quispe-Rodriguez participated in formal analysis and validation, as did Juan Cárdenas-Valverde. Karen Alcos-Flores worked on formal analysis and data curation. Kattia Cantillo-Pacheco and Paola Martínez-Sande contributed to investigation and resources. Loida Camargo also participated in conceptualization and resources. Ninoska Ocampo-Barba collaborated in methodology and writing of the original draft. Boris Zurita-Cueva contributed to conceptualization and resources. Juan Martínez and Cristian Araya contributed to formal analysis and data curation. Elsa Muñoz Romero participated in conceptualization and resources. Regulo Antezana worked on formal analysis and software. Cristian Romo was responsible for visualization and software. Finally, Carol Saldias participated in project administration and supervision, and Pascual A. Gargiulo contributed to supervision and resources.

Data Availability

This study is part of an international multicenter project titled “Telephone Cognitive Assessment Study in Older Adults from Latin America and the Caribbean (Code approval ethics act No 089-2021); (Ref. INV.140-02-003-15)." The data are under a 1-year embargo due to ongoing research. After this period, they can be requested by email from the corresponding author of the study or from the institutions overseeing the project (Escuela de Kinesiología, Facultad de Salud, Universidad Santo Tomás, Chile, and Universidad de la Costa). For any inquiries regarding data availability, please contact: unidaddepropiedadintelectual@cuc.edu.co; normanlopezve@santotomas.cl

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethics Committee

The study followed the ethical standards of the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki, revised in 2008, and obtained approval from the Ethics Committee of Universidad de la Costa and Universidad de Santo Tomas (Code approval ethics act No 089-2021). Online informed consent was obtained from all participants, who reviewed the study's objective and consented before completing the virtual questionnaire. No financial compensation was provided, only a report of results and a guide for coping with anxiety.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Universidad de la Costa and Universidad Santo Tomás, (grant number INV.140-02-004-15).

ORCID iDs

Norman López

Breiner Morales-Asencio

Daniela Ripoll-Córdoba

Juancarlos Coronado-López

Nicole Caldichoury

César Quispe-Ayala

David Salazar

Yuliana Florez

Irina Flores-Poma

Cesar Castellanos

Jorge Herrera-Pino

Indalecio Quispe-Rodríguez

Juan Cárdenas-Valverde

Karen Alcos-Flores

Elsa Muñoz-Romero

Kattia Cantillo-Pacheco

Paola Martínez-Sande

Loida Camargo

Ninoska Ocampo-Barba

Boris Zurita-Cueva

Juan Martínez

Cristian Araya

Cristian Romo

Regulo Antezana

Raúl Quincho-Apumayta

Pascual A. Gargiulo

References

Muskin

. Psychiatry.org - what are anxiety disorders? Generalized Anxiety Disorder. 2023:215-231.

Shen

Fang

, et al. Aberrated multidimensional EEG characteristics in patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a machine-learning based analysis framework. Sensors. 2022;22(14):5420. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/s22145420

Munir

Takov

. Generalized Anxiety Disorder. 2023.

Batra

Singh

Sharma

, et al. Investigating the psychological impact of COVID-19 among healthcare workers: a meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23):9096. doi:https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17239096

Pashazadeh Kan

Raoofi

Rafiei

, et al. A systematic review of the prevalence of anxiety among the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Affect Disord. 2021;293:391-398. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.06.073

Chen

Gao

Dai

, et al. Generalized anxiety disorder and resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from China during the early rapid outbreak. BMC Public Health. 2021;21(1):1830.

Adibi

Golitaleb

Farrahi-Ashtiani

, et al. The prevalence of generalized anxiety disorder among health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Psychiatry. 2021;12. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.658846

Vahratian

Blumberg

Terlizzi

, et al. Symptoms of anxiety or depressive disorder and use of mental health care among adults during the COVID-19 pandemic — United States, August 2020–February 2021. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70(13):490-494.

Kavelaars

Ward

Mackie deMauri

, et al. The burden of anxiety among a nationally representative US adult population. J Affect Disord. 2023;336:81-91.

10.

Patriquin

Mathew

. The neurobiological mechanisms of generalized anxiety disorder and chronic stress. Chronic Stress. 2017;1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2470547017703993

11.

Hoge

Ivkovic

Fricchione

. Generalized anxiety disorder: diagnosis and treatment. Br Med J. 2012;345:e7500-e7500.

12.

Feingold

Peccoralo

Chan

, et al. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on frontline health care workers during the pandemic surge in New York City. Chronic Stress. 2021:5. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/2470547020977891

13.

Spitzer

Kroenke

Williams

JBW

, et al. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(10):1092-1097.

14.

Löwe

Decker

Müller

, et al. Validation and standardization of the generalized anxiety disorder screener (GAD-7) in the general population. Med Care. 2008;46(3):266-274.

15.

Cotiga

Zanfirescu

ŞA

Iliescu

, et al. Psychometric characteristics of the Romanian adaptation of the GAD-7. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2023;45(3):691-701.

16.

Gong

Zhou

Zhang

, et al. Validation of the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7) as a screening tool for anxiety among pregnant Chinese women. J Affect Disord. 2021;282:98-103.

17.

Ahn

Kim

Choi

. The psychometric properties and clinical utility of the Korean version of GAD-7 and GAD-2. Front Psychiatry. 2019;10. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYT.2019.00127

18.

Hinz

Klein

Brähler

, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the generalized anxiety disorder screener GAD-7, based on a large German general population sample. J Affect Disord. 2017;210:338-344.

19.

Kujanpää

Ylisaukko-Oja

Jokelainen

, et al. Prevalence of anxiety disorders among Finnish primary care high utilizers and validation of Finnish translation of GAD-7 and GAD-2 screening tools. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2014;32(2):78-83.

20.

Byrd-Bredbenner

Eck

Quick

. GAD-7, GAD-2, and GAD-mini: Psychometric properties and norms of university students in the United States. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2021;69:61-66.

21.

Soto-Balbuena

Rodríguez-Muñoz

H-N

. Validation of the generalized anxiety disorder screener (GAD-7) in spanish pregnant women. Psicothema. 2021;33(1):164-170.

22.

Romano

Ferro

Patte

, et al. Measurement invariance of the GAD-7 and CESD-R-10 among adolescents in Canada. J Pediatr Psychol. 2022;47(5):585-594.

23.

White

Karr

. Psychometric properties of the GAD-7 among college students: reliability, validity, factor structure, and measurement invariance. Transl Issues Psychol Sci. 2023. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000382

24.

Pituch

Stevens

. Applied Multivariate Statistics for the Social Sciences Analyses with SAS and IBM‘s SPSS. 6th Edition. Routledge, 2016, https://www.routledge.com/Applied-Multivariate-Statistics-for-the-Social-Sciences-Analyses-with-SAS/Pituch-Stevens/p/book/9780415836661 (accessed 9 March 2023).

25.

Omani-Samani

Maroufizadeh

Ghaheri

, et al. Generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7) in people with infertility: a reliability and validity study. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2018;23(4):446-449.

26.

Adjorlolo

. Generalised anxiety disorder in adolescents in Ghana: examination of the psychometric properties of the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 scale. African Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2019;1:a10. doi:https://doi.org/10.4102/ajopa.v1i0.10

27.

Tiirikainen

Haravuori

Ranta

, et al. Psychometric properties of the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7) in a large representative sample of Finnish adolescents. Psychiatry Res. 2019;272:30-35.

28.

Johnson

Ulvenes

Øktedalen

, et al. Psychometric properties of the general anxiety disorder 7-item (GAD-7) scale in a heterogeneous psychiatric sample. Front Psychol. 2019;10. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01713

29.

Nyongesa

Mwangi

Koot

, et al. The reliability, validity and factorial structure of the swahili version of the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7) among adults living with HIV from kilifi, Kenya. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2020;19(1):62.

30.

Manzar

Alghadir

Anwer

, et al. Psychometric properties of the general anxiety disorders-7 scale using categorical data methods: a study in a sample of university attending Ethiopian young adults. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2021;17:893-903. doi:https://doi.org/10.2147/NDT.S295912

31.

Sun

Liang

Chi

, et al. Psychometric properties of the generalized anxiety disorder scale-7 item (GAD-7) in a large sample of Chinese adolescents. Healthcare. 2021;9:1709.

32.

Dhira

Rahman

Sarker

, et al. Validity and reliability of the generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7) among university students of Bangladesh. PLoS One. 2021;16(12):e0261590.

33.

Shevlin

Butter

McBride

, et al. Measurement invariance of the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9) and generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7) across four European countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Psychiatry. 2022;22(1):1-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-03787-5

34.

Pheh

K-S

Tan

C-S

Lee

, et al. Factorial structure, reliability, and construct validity of the generalized anxiety disorder 7-item (GAD-7): evidence from Malaysia. PLoS One. 2023;18(5):e0285435.

35.

Bolgeo

Di Matteo

Simonelli

, et al. Psychometric properties and measurement invariance of the 7-item general anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7) in an Italian coronary heart disease population. J Affect Disord. 2023;334:213-219.

36.

Camargo

Herrera-Pino

Shelach

, et al. Escala de ansiedad generalizada GAD-7 en profesionales médicos colombianos durante pandemia de COVID-19: validez de constructo y confiabilidad. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2023;52(3):245-250.

37.

Gaitán-Rossi

Pérez-Hernández

Vilar-Compte

, et al. Prevalencia mensual de trastorno de ansiedad generalizada durante la pandemia por COVID-19 en méxico. Salud Publica Mex. 2021;63(4):478-485.

38.

Merino-Soto

Angulo-Ramos

Rovira-Millán

, et al. Psychometric properties of the generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7) in a sample of workers. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.999242

39.

Moreno

Desousa

De Souza

AMFLP

, et al. Estructura factorial, confiabilidad, y ítems parámetros de la versión de portugués brasileño del cuestionario GAD-7. Temas em Psicologia. 2016;24(1):367-376.

40.

Porto

Ocampo-Barba

Flores-Valdivia

, et al. Propiedades psicométricas del GAD-7 para detectar ansiedad generaliza en profesionales sanitarios de Bolivia. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2022;39(1):115-116.

41.

Osorio-Anaya

Molina-Villar

Uribe-Escobar

, et al. Efecto de la pandemia por COVID-19 en la salud mental de los otorrinolaringólogos en hispanoamérica. ACTA DE OTORRINOLARINGOLOGÍA & CIRUGÍA DE CABEZA Y CUELLO. 2021;49(2):121-128.

42.

Izurieta-Brito

Poveda-Ríos

Naranjo-Hidalgo

, et al. Trastorno de ansiedad generalizada y estrés académico en estudiantes universitarios ecuatorianos durante la pandemia COVID-19. Rev Neuropsiquiatr. 2022;85(2):86-94.

43.

Crockett

Martínez

Ordóñez-Carrasco

, et al. Propiedades psicométricas de la escala generalized anxiety disorder 7-item (GAD-7) en una muestra comunitaria de adolescentes en Chile. Rev Med Chil. 2022;150(4):458-464.

44.

Franco-Jimenez

Nuñez-Magallanes

. Propiedades psicométricas del GAD-7, GAD-2 y GAD-Mini en universitarios peruanos. Propósitos y Representaciones. 2022;10(1). doi:https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2022.v10n1.1437

45.

Villarreal-Zegarra

Paredes-Angeles

Mayo-Puchoc

, et al. Psychometric properties of the GAD-7 (general anxiety disorder-7): a cross-sectional study of the Peruvian general population. BMC Psychol. 2024;12(1):183.

46.

González Zabala

Olivera

Guiragossian

, et al. Evidencias de validez y confiabilidad de la escala de trastorno de ansiedad generalizada (GAD-7) 1. Revista de Ciencias Empresariales y Sociales. 2022;8(5):121-135.

47.

Cjuno

Villegas-Mejía

Coronado-Fernández

. Adaptación y análisis psicométrico del cuestionario de ansiedad generalizada (GAD-7) al Quechua collao en perú. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica. 2024;41(2):121-128.

48.

López

Coronado

J-C

Quispe-Ayala

, et al. Clinical validation of the GAD-7 for the Peruvian Quechua population. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2025; 92:119-120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2024.10.008

49.

Mills

Fox

Malcarne

, et al. The psychometric properties of the generalized anxiety disorder-7 scale in hispanic Americans with English or spanish language preference. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2014;20(3):463-468.

50.

Gonçalves

Zuanazzi

Salvador

, et al. Evidências de validade para generalized anxiety disorder 7-item (GAD-7). Revista Psicologia e Saúde. 2023;15:e15101743. doi:https://doi.org/10.20435/pssa.v15i1.1743

51.

Kroenke

Spitzer

Williams

JBW

, et al. Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(5):317. doi:https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004

52.

Beard

Björgvinsson

. Beyond generalized anxiety disorder: psychometric properties of the GAD-7 in a heterogeneous psychiatric sample. J Anxiety Disord. 2014;28(6):547-552. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2014.06.002

53.

Doi

Ito

Takebayashi

, et al. Factorial validity and invariance of the 7-item generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7) among populations with and without self-reported psychiatric diagnostic status. Front Psychol. 2018;9. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01741

54.

Odero

Mwangi

Odhiambo

, et al. Psychometric evaluation of PHQ–9 and GAD–7 among community health volunteers and nurses/midwives in Kenya following a nation-wide telephonic survey. Front Psychiatry. 2023;14. doi:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1123839

55.

Goldstein

Vitoratou

Stone

, et al. Performance of the GAD-7 in adults with dissociative seizures. Seizure. 2023;104:15-21. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seizure.2022.11.011

56.

Pérez-Pedrogo

Sánchez-Cardona

Castro-Díaz

, et al. Psychometric properties of the generalized anxiety disorder 7-item scale in adolescents: an effective screening tool for school and community settings. P R Health Sci J. 2022;41(4):226-232.

57.

Donker

van Straten

Marks

, et al. 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. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2011.01.016

58.

Garcia-Campayo

Zamorano

Ruiz

, et al. Cultural adaptation into spanish of the generalized anxiety disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale as a screening tool. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:8.

59.

Lee

Kim

. The psychometric properties of the generalized anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7) among Korean university students. Psychiatry Clin Psychopharmacol. 2019;29(4):864-871.

60.

Sidik

Arroll

Goodyear-Smith

. Validation of the GAD-7 (malay version) among women attending a primary care clinic in Malaysia. J Prim Health Care. 2012;4(1):5-11. A1. doi:https://doi.org/10.1071/HC12005

61.

Eidman

Arbizu

Marturet

. Análisis psicométrico de la escala de ansiedad por coronavirus en población Argentina. Interacciones. 2021;7:e192-. doi:https://doi.org/10.24016/2020.v7.192

62.

Baker

Simon

Keshaviah

, et al. Anxiety symptoms questionnaire (ASQ): development and validation. Gen Psychiatr. 2019;32(6):e100144. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/gpsych-2019-100144

63.

Stern

. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Occup Med (Chic Ill). 2014;64(6):393-394. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x

64.

Villarreal-Zegarra

Barrera-Begazo

Otazú-Alfaro

, et al. Sensitivity and specificity of the patient health questionnaire (PHQ-9, PHQ-8, PHQ-2) and general anxiety disorder scale (GAD-7, GAD-2) for depression and anxiety diagnosis: a cross-sectional study in a Peruvian hospital population. BMJ Open. 2023;13(9):e076193. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076193

65.

Wang

, et al. Development of an optimal short form of the GAD-7 scale with cross-cultural generalizability based on Riskslim. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2024;87:33-40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2024.01.010