Construct validation of the hospital anxiety and depression scale with clinical populations
Introduction
The hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) [1] is widely used as a measure of mood, emotional distress, anxiety, depression and emotional disorder in clinical populations with symptoms of physical disease. It is useful because it is quick to use and easily acceptable to patients who may be quite unwell. With only 14 items each answered on a four-point verbal rating scale, it can be used to give measures of anxiety (7 items), depression (7 items) or emotional distress (all 14 items). Alternatively, it can be used to screen for emotional disorder using cut-offs on both the anxiety and depression scales. The major attraction of the HADS is that it was designed to be valid with these clinical populations, avoiding items that might be endorsed due to physical rather than psychological states.
Previous psychometric investigations have shown that the HADS achieve good internal consistency and test–retest reliabilities, are sensitive to change and give valid assessments [2]. Factor analytic studies have found support for the two factors, anxiety and depression [2], [3], [4] with items largely loading on the appropriate scales.
This paper addresses three further questions about the validity of the HADS. First, how well does it succeed in separating symptoms of physical conditions from somatic indices of psychological states? If it is successful, then it should be possible to demonstrate distinguishable factor structures. On the other hand, one might expect a more general ‘quality of life’ (QoL) construct where a conglomerate of the individual's experience results in a single coherent state. If symptoms of disease affect mood, then it might prove impossible to distinguish two factors. Then it would be meaningless to use a measure such as the HADS to assess the impact of disease on mood states. Further, Watson and Pennebaker [5] have pointed to the ‘nuisance factor in health research’ of negative affectivity (NA), the individual's predisposition to see and report experiences in a negative way. The effect of NA would be to produce one factor dominated by the tendency to report both physical and psychological states with a more or less negative outlook. Thus, it may be impossible to achieve Zigmond and Snaith's [1] goal because of the pervasive effects of NA or because all symptoms combine in a single state of QoL.
Second, are all the items on the HADS valid for patients having different clinical conditions and management? Researchers frequently comment informally or in oral presentations on the possible inappropriateness of some of the items for particular patients. For example, ‘I feel as if I am slowed down’ might simply reflect the effect of the disorder in stroke, or “I get a sort of frightened feeling like ‘butterflies’ in the stomach” might be confused with cardiac symptoms. Similarly, ‘I can enjoy a good book or radio or TV programme’ may not be valid in an acute medical ward. Psychometric studies have noted items performing poorly in their analyses [3] and this may be due to invalidity of items for specific populations. While any questionnaire will have items that are not a coherent part of the dimension being measured for individual patients, the problems noted would result in systematic patterns of invalidity for whole populations. So for example, stroke, cardiac, and acute medical patients might each have a higher score in the above examples than they would have if the scale did not confound their mood with other aspects of their condition and management. It would then be difficult to study mixed populations or to compare different clinical populations without some adjustments to the scale. Indices of internal consistency allow examination of the extent to which the scale has aberrant items of this kind for a particular population.
Third, different scores are derived from the HADS and one can ask if they are all valid. Zigmond and Snaith [1] demonstrated that the scale was sensitive in detecting emotional disorder and published validated cut-offs for possible and probable disorder for both the anxiety and depression scales. However, the distinction between the anxiety and depression scales needs to be demonstrated, as otherwise the HADS might more appropriately be used as a measure of general distress. Theoretically, the distinction is important as threatening situations such as anticipating a surgical procedure or receiving results of an HIV test are postulated to raise anxiety, while loss situations such as bereavement or loss of function are seen as causing depressed mood. There is evidence of distinct patterns of cognitive performance for anxiety and depressive disorder [6] and it is therefore valuable to be able to discriminate the two. Exploratory analyses have largely found support for the two scales and the allocation of items to scales [2], [3], [4], but it has yet to be demonstrated that the HADS achieves validity for this separation of the two subscales in a confirmatory analysis.
The aims of this paper were to examine the following three questions using psychometric and factor analytic techniques:
- 1.
Do HADS items load on a separate factor from items dealing with symptoms of physical disorder?
- 2.
Do HADS items achieve satisfactory internal consistency in populations with different clinical conditions and at different stages of management?
- 3.
Is there support for the separation of the anxiety and depression items of the HADS?
Section snippets
Design
Each of the questions was addressed using different methods and data from a variety of clinical populations. Question 1 used exploratory factor analyses of the HADS and a questionnaire dealing with both physical and psychological symptoms in patients being investigated and treated for breast disease. For Question 2, internal consistency of the HADS was examined in populations with different clinical conditions (breast disease, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke) and stages of management
Question 1
The two-factor solution is presented in Table 1. Factor 1 is clearly a psychological dimension and factor 2 is a somatic dimension. Six anxiety and four depression items load on factor 1, the psychological dimension, and none of the HADS items meets the criteria for loading on factor 2, the somatic dimension. All HADS items have factor loadings greater than 0.4 on the psychological factor except item 8 [slowed down] but three [item 7, at ease and feel relaxed; item 2, enjoy the things I used
Discussion
Overall, the HADS performed quite well. In the exploratory factor analyses, 13 out of the 14 items loaded on the psychological factor, using the arbitrary cut-offs set for evaluating loadings. Two items additionally loaded above 0.4 on the somatic factor but in each case, the psychological factor loading was higher. The RSCL psychological items also performed well, all loading on the psychological factor only. However, the somatic items did not fall so consistently on the somatic factor. This
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to all the patients who participated in these studies; to Paul Preece, John Dewar, Ron MacWalter; to Val Morrison, Joan Foulkes, Hafrun Gudmundsdottir and others involved in data collection; and to the Scottish Office DOH CSO, Chest Heart and Stroke (Scotland) and the Cancer Research Campaign for their support for the studies. MJ is a member of the MRC HSRC.
References (13)
International experiences with the hospital anxiety and depression scale — a review of validation data and clinical results
J Psychom Res
(1997)- et al.
The hospital anxiety and depression scale
Acta Psychiatr Scand
(1983) - et al.
Factor structure of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in cancer patients
South Afr Med J
(1998) - et al.
A validation study of the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) in different groups of Dutch subjects
Psychol Med
(1997) - et al.
Health complaints, stress and distress: exploring the central role of negative affectivity
Psychol Rev
(1989) - et al.
Cognitive Psychology and Emotional Disorders
(1988)
Cited by (299)
Treatment of Cancer-related-Fatigue in Acute Hematological Malignancies: Results of a Feasibility Study of using Cognitive Behavioral Therapy
2023, Journal of Pain and Symptom ManagementValidity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in primary care patients in Colombia
2022, General Hospital Psychiatry