MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112355142 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v2n1p73

Using the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) to Assess the Psychological Health of Malaysian College Students

2010· article· en· W2112355142 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sheereen Nor Zulkefly, Rozumah Baharudin

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Development and Education Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral Health QuestionnaireCluster samplingPsychologyPsychological distressClinical psychologyReliability (semiconductor)Psychological healthDistressMental healthCluster (spacecraft)PsychiatryMedicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of this study was to assess the psychological health of students at a local university inMalaysia using General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). Additionally, the study was carried out to determinethe reliability and factor structure of the GHQ-12. Sample comprised 386 students (female=177, male=209) whowere selected using multistage cluster sampling. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect the datarequired. Results showed that slightly more than half (52.9%) of the respondents scored low on the GHQ-12, anda substantial proportion (47.1%) of them scored high, indicating an unhealthy psychological state. Nevertheless,no differences were observed between the genders. Reliability analysis showed satisfactory results, with aCronbach’s alpha of 0.70. Meanwhile, factor analysis revealed that GHQ-12 was a measure of psychologicaldistress, with a three-factor structure (Psychological Distress, Social and Emotional Dysfunction and CognitiveDisorder), which jointly accounted for 51.9% of the variance. The findings of the study therefore affirm that theGHQ-12 is a good measure for assessing the overall psychological well-being of students in Malaysia.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.202
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations116
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicSocial Development and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207