Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS): Arabic - Vacau

ADMINISTRATION:
• Method: Paper-pencil although some success has been reported with
verbal administration. See Pan and Goldberg (1990) for a useful
discussion of problems associated with the verbal presentation of the
CHQ when administered to Cantonese speaking participants.
• Scoring: No scoring system has been made explicit. Alternative
scoring methods have been developed and tested (e. g., Goodchild and
Duncan-Jones, 1985) yet Pan and Goldberg reported no appreciable
advantage of this scoring system over the conventional scoring method
of the GHQ.
• Acceptance: Unclear.
• Time Required: Unknown, although times likely to be similar to the
GHQ.
• Forms: CHQ-12, CHQ-30 and CHQ-60. Sub scales described. A
computerised version of the CHQ-12 is in use, see Shu, Lung and
Huang (2002).
• Restrictions: None.
PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES:
• Diagnostic validity: The CHQ-12 shows good diagnostic accuracy
(AUC) when assessed against the Chinese version of the Clinical
Interview Schedule. The CHQ-30 shows promising diagnostic accuracy
when assessed against the Clinical Interview Schedule yet additional
evidence is needed.
• Sensitivity and specificity: The CHQ-12 exhibits average sensitivity
and specificity across two studies. The CHQ-30 exhibits average
sensitivity and specificity in one study and therefore additional evidence
is needed. Additional evidence needed for all forms of the CHQ.
• Internal consistency: Full scale score internal consistency was
average in one study.
• Test-retest reliability: Full scale score test-retest reliability was
excellent in one very small study. Additional evidence is needed.
• Norms: None
• Responsiveness to change: Unknown.
39