Validity and Reliability of the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ-12) in Indonesia: Scale for the Detection of Psychological Distress in Individuals Experiencing Quarter-life Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to test the validity and reliability of the General Health Questionnaire-12 (GHQ)-12) for the Indonesian version, specifically for individuals who experience a quarter-life crisis. Individuals who experience a quarter-life crisis are identical in the form of psychological distress. The development of the GHQ-12 instrument was carried out to facilitate professionals in detecting levels of psychological distress as well as as an instrument in providing appropriate treatment. 300 participants (M= 23.70; SD = 2.64) were involved in this study. The reliability of Cronbach's Alpha (α=0.903) showed GHQ-12 as an acceptable instrument. The GHQ-12 was found a one-dimensional model. CFA with goodness of-fit was found GHQ-12 was accepted, value of X2= 153.893; RMSEA=0.079; GFI=0.921; TLI= 0.918; and CFI=0.933. This study’s results indicate satisfactory validity and reliability for GHQ-12 as an instrument in detecting psychological distress for individuals experiencing a quarter-life crisis. The implications of this study can be used as a reference in providing appropriate interventions for overcoming psychological distress.
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
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".