We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Due to previously reported mixed findings, there is a need for further empirical research on the factorial structure of the commonly used Geriatric Anxiety Inventory (GAI). Therefore, the psychometric properties of the GAI and its short form version (GAI-SF) were evaluated in a psychogeriatric mixed in-and-out patient sample (n = 543).
Methods:
Unidimensionality was tested using a bifactor analysis. Rasch modeling was used to assess scale properties. Sex, cognitive functioning and depressive symptoms were tested for differential item functioning (DIF).
Results:
The bifactor analysis identified an essential unidimensional (general) factor structure but also specific local factors. The general factor comprises all the 20 items as one factor, and the results showed that the variance in the general and specific factors (subscale) scores is best explained by the single general factor. These findings were demonstrated for both versions of the GAI. Furthermore, the Rasch models identified extensive item overlap, indicating redundant items in the full version of the GAI. The GAI-SF also seems to extract much of the same information as the full form. Test scores and items have the same meaning for older adults across different demographic status.
Conclusion:
The findings support the use of a total sum score for both GAI and GAI-SF. Notably, when using the GAI-SF, no information is lost, in comparison with the full scale, thus, supporting the option of choosing the short form (version) when considered most appropriate in demanding clinical contexts.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.