Skip to main content
Download PDF

Longitudinal measurement invariance and psychometric properties of the Patient Health Questionnaire-Four in China

BMC Psychiatry volume 24, Article number: 517 (2024) Cite this article

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.

Peer Review reports

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. 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. 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. 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).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Confirmatory factor analysis results of the PHQ-4 for a two-factor model

The one-sided arrows represent factor loadings while the double-sided one represents the covariance between the two factors. The orange, blue, and green color represent values of time 1, 2, and 3 respectively

Full size image
Table 1 Fit indices of different factor models of the PHQ-4
Full size table

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).

Table 2 Fit indices of longitudinal measurement invariance of the PHQ-4 across three time points
Full size table

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.

Fig. 2
figure 2

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

Full size image

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.

Table 3 Internal consistency and test–retest reliability of the PHQ-4
Full size table

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

  1. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Clark DC, Zeldow PB. Vicissitudes of depressed mood during four years of medical school. JAMA. 1988;260(17):2521–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Woloschuk W, Harasym PH, Temple W. Attitude change during medical school: a cohort study. Med Educ. 2004;38(5):522–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

  29. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Mineka S, Watson D, Clark LA. Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Annu Rev Psychol. 1998;49(1):377–412.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Chambless DL, Hollon SD. Defining empirically supported therapies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1998;66(1):7–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Sowislo J, Orth U. Does low self-esteem predict depression and anxiety? A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull. 2012;139:213–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Calear AL, Christensen H. Systematic review of school-based prevention and early intervention programs for depression. J Adolesc. 2010;33(3):429–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  57. World Medical Association. World medical association declaration of helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Everitt BS. Multivariate analysis: the need for data, and other problems. Br J Psychiatry. 1975;126(3):237–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Mundfrom DJ, Shaw DG, Ke TL. Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analyses. Int J Test. 2005;5(2):159–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Meng R. Development and evaluation of the Chinese version of the Sleep Quality Questionnaire (doctoral dissertation in Chinese). Wuhan University; 2020.

  66. Kato T. Development of the sleep quality questionnaire in healthy adults. J Health Psychol. 2014;19(8):977–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Rosenberg M. Society and the adolescent self-Iimage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 1965.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  69. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Korkmaz S, Goksuluk D, Zararsiz G. MVN: an R package for assessing multivariate normality. R J. 2014;6(2):151–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Peters G-J: ufs package (0.4.3). 2021. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ufs/ufs.pdf. Accessed 6 Mar.

  74. 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.

  75. 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.

  76. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis: Pearson New International Edition. 7th ed. London: Pearson Higher Education; 2014.

  81. McDonald RP, Ho MH. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(1):64–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Satorra A, Bentler PM. A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika. 2001;66(4):507–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Cho E, Kim S. Cronbach’s coefficient alpha: well known but poorly understood. Organ Res Methods. 2015;18(2):207–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19(1):231–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–63.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Gagne P, Hancock GR. Measurement model quality, sample size, and solution propriety in confirmatory factor models. Multivar Behav Res. 2006;41(1):65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Rodriguez A, Reise S, Haviland M. Evaluating bifactor models: calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychol Methods. 2015;21(2):137–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. MacLeod C, Mathews A. Cognitive bias modification approaches to anxiety. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2012;8(1):189–217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  96. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. School of Public Health, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, 311121, Zhejiang, China

    Runtang Meng, Chen Jiang, Nongnong Yang, Caojie Zhou, Jiale Xu, Wenjing Zou, Xiaowen Wang, Liping Lu & Haiyan Ma

  2. Engineering Research Center of Mobile Health Management System, Ministry of Education, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Runtang Meng & Haiyan Ma

  3. National Sleep Foundation, Washington, DC, USA

    Joseph M. Dzierzewski

  4. School of Clinical Medicine, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

    Yihong Zhu & Yufan Ping

  5. Ophthalmology Center, Ningbo Yinzhou No.2 Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China

    Meng Wang

  6. Global Health Research Division, Public Health Research Center and Department of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Wuxi School of Medicine, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, Jiangsu, China

    Xiaoxue Liu

  7. Department of Neurology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, Henan, China

    Lina Guo

  8. School of Nursing, Ningbo College of Health Sciences, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China

    Yi Luo

  9. Université Paris Cité, NeuroDiderot, INSERM, Paris, France

    Karen Spruyt

Authors
  1. Runtang Meng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chen Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joseph M. Dzierzewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yihong Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Meng Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nongnong Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xiaoxue Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Lina Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yufan Ping
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Caojie Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jiale Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Wenjing Zou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Xiaowen Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Liping Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Haiyan Ma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Yi Luo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Karen Spruyt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Correspondence to Runtang Meng.

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.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-024-05873-2

Keywords

BMC Psychiatry

ISSN: 1471-244X

Contact us