Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

A multivariate spatial model for ordinal survey-based data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Jointly modeling ordinal survey questions sharpens small-area mental-health maps.

desk verdict A coherent multivariate extension of the authors' own ordinal spatial model, but the central claim that adding individual random effects improves area-level estimation rests entirely on one case study and no simulation. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.20944 v1 pith:LGIV4UB2 submitted 2025-07-28 stat.ME

Miguel Ángel Beltrán-Sánchez , Miguel Ángel Martínez-Beneito , Ana Corberán-Vallet This is my paper · ORCID
classification stat.ME MSC 62F1562H1162P10
keywords BayesianinferencehealthsurveysmultivariateanalysisordinaldataspatialmodelingconditionalautoregressiveindividualrandomeffectsGHQ-12
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes a Bayesian multivariate spatial model for health-survey data in which several ordinal questions from the same thematic block are analyzed jointly rather than one at a time. It extends an existing univariate individual-level model by letting the spatial effects of different questions be correlated and by adding respondent-level random effects that absorb correlations among a person's answers. Applied to the twelve items of the GHQ-12 mental-health questionnaire in the 2022 Health Survey of the Region of Valencia, the full model yields smoother and more confident municipality-level maps and separates area-level correlations from individual-level correlations. The central claim is that this joint structure improves estimation of geographical patterns and reveals dependencies that univariate analyses miss.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing device is the M-model factorization of the multivariate spatial and individual random effects. The M by K matrix of areal effects for K questions is written as the product of a matrix whose independent columns follow Leroux conditional autoregressive priors with unit variance and a K by K matrix of Gaussian entries, so that the area-level variance-covariance matrix across questions is the cross-product of the latter matrix. The same factorization is applied to respondent-level effects, giving an individual-level variance-covariance matrix across the ordinal variables. These factorizations turn the problem of estimating a large covariance matrix into estimating the entries of the two small square matrices, and they let the model borrow strength across questions at both the areal and individual levels while keeping the cumulative-logit ordinal structure intact.

What would settle it

Re-fit the model with municipality size included as a covariate or with design weights and compare the resulting spatial effects and area-level correlations; a material shift in the maps would show that the ignorability assumption distorts the estimated patterns.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that accounting for two distinct layers of dependence—spatial correlation among municipalities and individual-level correlation among responses within a thematic block—produces better small-area estimates for ordinal survey variables than fitting separate univariate models or modeling only spatial correlation. On the GHQ-12 data, the correlated model with individual random effects (Model-Corr&IRE) gives geographically smoother posterior mean maps, tighter prediction intervals that track observed municipal percentages, and by far the lowest WAIC (103170.1 versus 192525.4 for the independent model and 190447.6 for the spatially correlated model without individual effects). The model also recovers the two sub-blocks of GHQ-12 items repeatedly found in the psychometric literature, namely social dysfunction and general dysphoria, at both municipality and individual levels, with stronger correlations at the individual level. The authors further show that forcing spatial correlation without individual random effects transfers individual variability into the area effects, producing noisy and potentially misleading maps.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the survey design can be ignored once sex and age are in the model, even though the actual selection proceeded by systematic sampling from a population list ordered by municipality size.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Jointly modeling the twelve GHQ-12 items yields smoother, less noisy municipality-level maps than modeling each item separately.
  • Including respondent-level random effects prevents individual-level correlations from masquerading as spatial variation; without them, the area-level maps are substantially noisier.
  • The model separates area-level from individual-level correlations and recovers the two known GHQ-12 sub-blocks at both levels.
  • The full model gives a much lower WAIC and prediction intervals that align more closely with observed municipal response percentages.
  • The modeling framework can accommodate thematic blocks whose variables have different numbers of categories, including binary items.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An immediate stress test would add municipality size as a covariate and check whether the reported spatial patterns and area-level correlations survive, directly addressing the paper's main design-ignorability assumption.
  • The two-layer dependence structure could be applied to other thematic blocks in the same survey to see whether the GHQ-12's strong sub-block structure is typical or special.
  • Because the reported predictive gains are large, a simulation study on synthetic populations would clarify how much of the improvement comes from borrowing strength across questions rather than from the particular survey sample.
  • Extending the model across successive survey waves could exploit the respondent-level layer to track changes in mental health over time, at the cost of substantially heavier computation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes three multivariate Bayesian hierarchical models for ordinal survey data: an independent model (Model-Indep), a spatially correlated model using the M-model framework (Model-Corr), and a model that adds individual random effects (Model-Corr&IRE). The models are applied to the 12-item GHQ-12 mental health block of the 2022 Health Survey of the Region of Valencia, with municipalities as small areas. The paper claims that Model-Corr&IRE improves estimation of spatial patterns by borrowing strength across correlated ordinal responses and by filtering individual-level correlation, and reports visual smoothness, posterior predictive checks, WAIC, and identification of the two known GHQ-12 sub-blocks as supporting evidence.

Significance. If the central claim were fully substantiated, the paper would offer a useful extension of the authors' univariate ordinal spatial model to a multivariate setting, with practical value for survey-based small-area estimation. The model formulation is coherent, the M-model and individual-random-effect structure are reasonable, and the authors provide reproducible NIMBLE code. The empirical finding that the estimated area-level correlation matrix recovers the two-factor structure of the GHQ-12 is a valuable sanity check. However, the paper's key claim that Model-Corr&IRE 'improves the estimation of spatial patterns' is currently supported only by real-data fit criteria and visual smoothness, not by a simulation study with known spatial surfaces. This, together with a potentially non-ignorable sampling design assumption, leaves the central contribution insufficiently verified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, sampling design paragraph] The paper states 'we will ignore the systematic component of the sampling, assuming therefore simple random sampling within sex-age strata, so the design can be ignored given that those variables are included in the model.' The actual design selected units by systematic sampling on a population ordered by municipality size, and municipality size is not included in the covariate vector xi (which contains only sex, age, and municipality). Since municipality size is geographically structured and plausibly correlated with mental health outcomes, the design may not be ignorable given the included covariates, and the estimated spatial random effects θ_mk could be biased. The Section 4 limitation statement (all design variables must be known) does not address this specific omission. Please either include municipality size as a covariate/design variable, or provide a sensitivity analysis demonstrating that the estimated θ_mk are robust to this assumption.
  2. [Section 3, Figures 1–2 and Section 4] The central claim that Model-Corr&IRE 'improves the estimation of spatial patterns' is not demonstrated by the evidence presented. Visual smoothness, in-sample predictive checks (Table 2), and WAIC all measure fit to the observed individual responses, not accuracy of the estimated area-level random effects. Smoother maps can result from over-shrinkage, and WAIC gains can be driven by the large number of individual random effects (n×K ≈ 117,000) rather than by better recovery of area-level structure. The paper contains no simulation study with known spatial surfaces. A simulation study comparing MSE, bias, and interval coverage for θ_mk across Model-Indep, Model-Corr, and Model-Corr&IRE is required to substantiate the phrase 'improves estimation'.
  3. [Section 3, WAIC paragraph] The reported WAIC values are 192,525.4 (Indep), 190,447.6 (Corr), and 103,170.1 (Corr&IRE). The drop of roughly 87,000 for Corr&IRE is extremely large and should be scrutinized before being used as evidence. Please report the effective number of parameters (p_WAIC) or a comparable complexity measure, and verify that WAIC is computed on the same predictive quantities for all three models. More fundamentally, WAIC is a predictive-fit criterion for individual responses; it does not measure whether area-level spatial random effects are estimated more accurately. This concern reinforces the need for a simulation study.
  4. [Section 2.2.3, Eq. (8)] In municipalities with very few respondents, the area-level effect θ_mk and the individual random effect ψ_ik are not separately identified by the likelihood; identification then rests on the priors (spatial LCAR versus iid normal) and on replication within areas. The paper does not report the distribution of municipality sample sizes n_m or any diagnostics for this potential confounding. Because the central claim concerns θ_mk, please report the n_m distribution and, ideally, a sensitivity analysis (e.g., varying the prior scale of the individual effects) or a small-area simulation showing that θ_mk estimates are stable.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.2.1, identifiability constraints] The notation 'Pn i=1 θmik = 0' is confusing because θ has indices m and k, not i. The intended constraint is Σ_m n_m θ_mk = 0 (or Σ_i θ_{m_i,k} = 0). Please clarify the notation in this equation.
  2. [Section 2.2.3] No identifiability or centering constraint is stated for the individual random effects Ψ, unlike the spatial random effects in Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. Please clarify how the model avoids confounding between ψ_ik and the cut points κ_{s,a,j,k}.
  3. [Section 2.2.1] There is a typo: 'multivariate approch' should be 'multivariate approach'.
  4. [Table 2 and Supplemental Tables] The footnote describing 'the model shaded in gray' and 'highlighted in red' may not be visible in grayscale printing or for colorblind readers. Consider using symbols or text labels to indicate which model has the best fit and which intervals exclude the observed value.
  5. [Figure 1] The color description 'green (brown) indicates municipalities with better (worse) mental health status' may be difficult for colorblind readers; please consider adding a pattern or a more colorblind-safe palette.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the multivariate model is a transparent extension of standard ordinal and spatial building blocks, and its empirical claims are not defined by their inputs.

full rationale

I walked the paper's derivation chain from the ordinal cumulative-logit likelihood (Eqs. 2-8) through the three proposed models. The target quantities are posterior distributions of spatial and individual random effects, and the model specification does not define any claimed result in terms of its own output. The M-model factorization (Section 2.2.2, following Botella-Rocamora et al. [2]) and the univariate ordinal framework (Section 2.1, following Beltrán-Sánchez et al. [10]) are cited as building blocks, not as uniqueness theorems or as forced choices that would make the extension circular. The two GHQ-12 sub-blocks are presented as an empirical finding cross-checked against external literature, not as a constant fitted into the model. The posterior predictive tables and WAIC comparisons are in-sample fit diagnostics; they may be overoptimistic or insufficient to prove that area-level estimation improves, but that is a validation gap rather than a circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces to a self-citation chain. The absence of a simulation study is a correctness and evidence concern, not a circularity concern, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard Bayesian hierarchical modeling, the M-model for multivariate spatial dependence, and the assumption that the survey design is ignorable after conditioning on sex and age. The most fragile premise is the design-ignorability assumption, since municipality size is used in sampling but not included as a covariate. No new entities or ad hoc constants are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The survey design is ignorable given the sex and age groups included as covariates.
    Stated in Section 3: 'we will ignore the systematic component of the sampling, assuming therefore simple random sampling within sex-age strata'. This is load-bearing because municipality size, which was used for ordering, is not a covariate.
  • domain assumption The M-model representation Theta = Phi M, with independent CAR priors on columns of Phi and Gaussian priors on entries of M, adequately captures multivariate spatial dependence.
    Adopted from Botella-Rocamora et al. 2015; the paper uses it without discussing identifiability constraints on M beyond zero-sum constraints on Phi.
  • domain assumption Individual random effects follow a factor model Psi = Phi_tilde M_tilde, with independent standard normal latent factors.
    Section 2.2.3 specifies 'phi_tilde_k ~ Nn(0n, I n)' and 'M_tilde_ij ~ N(0, sigma_tilde_M^2)', implying a factor structure for respondent-level correlations.
  • domain assumption Adjacency-based Leroux CAR priors are appropriate for modeling spatial dependence among municipalities.
    Section 2.2.1 and the application section state that 'spatial contiguity between municipalities defines the adjacency structure' for the spatial random effects.
  • domain assumption All design variables are known and included in the model.
    The authors note this limitation in Section 4: 'one limitation of the proposed methodology is that it assumes all design variables are known'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A multivariate spatial model for ordinal survey-based data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGIV4UB2

@misc{pith2026250720944,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A multivariate spatial model for ordinal survey-based data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGIV4UB2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.20944}
}
read the original abstract

Health surveys provide valuable information for monitoring population health, identifying risk factors and informing public health policies. Most of the questions included are coded as ordinal variables and organized into thematic blocks. Accordingly, multivariate modeling provides a natural framework for considering these variables as true groups, thereby accounting for potential dependencies among the responses within each block. In this paper, we propose a multivariate spatial analysis of ordinal survey-based data. This multivariate approach enables the joint analysis of sets of ordinal responses that are likely to be correlated, accounting for individual-level effects, while simultaneously improving the estimation of the geographical patterns for each variable and capturing their interdependencies. We apply this methodology to describe the spatial distribution of several mental health indicators from the Health Survey of the Region of Valencia (Spain) for the year 2022. Specifically, we analyze the block of questions from the 12-item General Health Questionnaire included in the survey.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.20944 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Posterior means of the spatial random vectors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Posterior relevances of the spatial random vectors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Correlations among responses at the municipality level under Model–Corr&IRE. Lower triangular shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Correlations among responses at the individual level under Model–Corr&IRE. Lower triangular shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (A) First and (B) second principal components from a principal component analysis (PCA) of the posterior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Martinez-Beneito

    Miguel A. Martinez-Beneito. A general modelling framework for multivariate disease mapping. Biometrika, 100 (3):539–553, 2013. ISSN 0006-3444. doi: 10.1093/biomet/ast023

    work page doi:10.1093/biomet/ast023 2013

  2. [2]

    Botella-Rocamora, M.A

    P. Botella-Rocamora, M.A. Martinez-Beneito, and S. Banerjee. A unifying modeling framework for highly multivariate disease mapping. Statistics in Medicine, 34(9):1548–1559, 2015. doi: 10.1002/sim.6423

    doi:10.1002/sim.6423 2015

  3. [3]

    Miguel A. Martinez-Beneito, Carlos Vergara-Hernández, Paloma Botella-Rocamora, Francisca Corpas-Burgos, Jordi Pérez-Panadés, Óscar Zurriaga, Elena Aldasoro, Carme Borrell, Elena Cabeza, Lluís Cirera, Josu Del- frade Osinaga, Ana Fernández-Somoano, Ana Gandarillas, Pedro L. Lorenzo Ruano, Marc Marí-Dell’Olmo, Andreu Nolasco, M. Dolores Prieto-Salceda, Rebe...

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    High-dimensional order-free multivariate spatial disease mapping

    Gonzalo Vicente, Aritz Adin, Tomás Goicoa, and María Dolores Ugarte. High-dimensional order-free multivariate spatial disease mapping. Statistics and Computing, 33(104), 2023. doi: 10.1007/s11222-023-10263-x

    work page doi:10.1007/s11222-023-10263-x 2023

  5. [5]

    Andrew Lawson, Anna Schritz, Luis Villarroel, and Gloria A. Aguayo. Multi-scale multivariate models for small area health survey data: A chilean example. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(5), 2020. ISSN 1660-4601. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051682

    work page doi:10.3390/ijerph17051682 2020

  6. [6]

    Spatial co-morbidity of childhood acute respiratory infection, diarrhoea and stunting in nigeria

    Olamide Seyi Orunmoluyi, Ezra Gayawan, and Samuel Manda. Spatial co-morbidity of childhood acute respiratory infection, diarrhoea and stunting in nigeria. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), 2022. ISSN 1660-4601. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19031838

    work page doi:10.3390/ijerph19031838 2022

  7. [7]

    Alele, Olamide S

    Abdul-Aziz Seidu, Faith O. Alele, Olamide S. Akeboi, Bunmi S. Malau-Aduli, and Oyelola A. Adegboye. Bayesian multivariate spatial modelling of risky sexual behaviour among young people in nigeria. Spatial Demography, 12(4), 2024. doi: 10.1007/s40980-024-00125-z

    work page doi:10.1007/s40980-024-00125-z 2024

  8. [8]

    Issues in Multivariate Spatial Analysis of Multiple Diseases Using Complex Health Survey Data, pages 281–295

    Sheyla Rodrigues Cassy and Samuel Manda. Issues in Multivariate Spatial Analysis of Multiple Diseases Using Complex Health Survey Data, pages 281–295. Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024. ISBN 978-3-031-69690-9. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-69690-9_12. 19 BELTRÁN -SÁNCHEZ ET AL . S EPTEMBER 23, 2025

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-69690-9_12 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Hierarchical bayesian bivariate spatial modeling of small area proportions with application to health survey data

    Hanjun Yu, Xinyi Xu, and Lichao Yu. Hierarchical bayesian bivariate spatial modeling of small area proportions with application to health survey data. Statistical Methods in Medical Research , 0(0), 2025. doi: 10.1177/ 09622802251316968

    2025

  2. [10]

    Bayesian modeling of spatial ordinal data from health surveys

    Miguel Angel Beltrán-Sánchez, Miguel-Angel Martinez-Beneito, and Ana Corberán-Vallet. Bayesian modeling of spatial ordinal data from health surveys. Statistics in Medicine, 43(21):4178–4193, 2024. doi: 10.1002/sim.10166

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    The bayesian approach to sample survey inference

    Roderick J Little. The bayesian approach to sample survey inference. pages 49–57, 2003. doi: 10.1002/ 0470867205.ch4

    2003

  4. [12]

    Bayesian Data Analysis

    A Gelman, JB Carlin, HS Stern, DB Dunson, A Vehtari, and DB Rubin. Bayesian Data Analysis. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 3rd edition, 2013. doi: 10.1201/b16018

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    Regression models for ordinal data

    Peter McCullagh. Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 42(2):109–142, 1980. ISSN 00359246. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/2984952

    1980

  6. [14]

    Bayesian Models for Categorical Data

    Peter Congdon. Bayesian Models for Categorical Data. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2005. doi: 10.1002/0470092394

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    Estimation of disease rates in small areas: A new mixed model for spatial dependence

    Brian G Leroux, Xingye Lei, and Norman Breslow. Estimation of disease rates in small areas: A new mixed model for spatial dependence. Statistical Models in Epidemiology, the Environment, and Clinical Trials, 2000. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4612-1284-3_4

    doi

  8. [16]

    Poststratification into many categories using hierarchical logistic regression

    A Gelman and T Little. Poststratification into many categories using hierarchical logistic regression. Survey Methodology, 1997. URL https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/12-001-X19970023616

    1997

  9. [17]

    Bayesian multilevel estimation with poststratification: State-level estimates from national polls

    David K Park, Andrew Gelman, and Joseph Bafumi. Bayesian multilevel estimation with poststratification: State-level estimates from national polls. Political Analysis, 12:375–385, 2004. doi: 10.1093/pan/mph024

    2004 doi

  10. [18]

    State-level opinions from national surveys: Poststratification using multilevel logistic regression

    David K Park, Andrew Gelman, and Joseph Bafumi. State-level opinions from national surveys: Poststratification using multilevel logistic regression. 08 2006. doi: 10.11126/stanford/9780804753005.003.0011

    2006

  11. [19]

    Extending the Linear Model with R: Generalized Linear, Mixed Effects and Nonparametric Regression Models

    JJ Faraway. Extending the Linear Model with R: Generalized Linear, Mixed Effects and Nonparametric Regression Models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 2nd edition, 2016. doi: 10.1201/9781315382722

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models

    AJ Dobson and AG Barnett. An Introduction to Generalized Linear Models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, 4th edition,

  13. [21]

    A constructive definition of dirichlet priors

    Jayaram Sethuraman. A constructive definition of dirichlet priors. Statistica Sinica, 4(2):639–650, 1994. ISSN 10170405, 19968507. URL http://www.jstor.org/stable/24305538

    1994

  14. [22]

    Corpas-Burgos, P

    F. Corpas-Burgos, P. Botella-Rocamora, and M. A. Martinez-Beneito. On the convenience of heteroscedasticity in highly multivariate disease mapping. TEST, 28:1229–1250, 2019. doi: 10.1007/s11749-019-00628-8

    2019 doi

  15. [23]

    Goldberg and P

    D. Goldberg and P. Williams. A User’s Guide to the General Health Questionnaire . NFER-NELSON, 1988. ISBN 9780700511822

    1988

  16. [24]

    Paciorek, Clifford Anderson-Bergman, Duncan Temple Lang, and Rastislav Bodik

    Perry de Valpine, Daniel Turek, Christopher J. Paciorek, Clifford Anderson-Bergman, Duncan Temple Lang, and Rastislav Bodik. Programming with models: Writing statistical algorithms for general model structures with 20 BELTRÁN -SÁNCHEZ ET AL . S EPTEMBER 23, 2025 nimble. Journa...

    2025

  17. [25]

    Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: Which algorithms implement ward’s criterion? Journal of Classification, 31:274–295, 2014

    Fionn Murtagh and Pierre Legendre. Ward’s hierarchical agglomerative clustering method: Which algorithms implement ward’s criterion? Journal of Classification, 31:274–295, 2014. doi: 10.1007/s00357-014-9161-z

    2014 doi

  18. [26]

    P. L. Politi, M. Piccinelli, and G. Wilkinson. Reliability, validity and factor structure of the 12-item general health questionnaire among young males in italy. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 90(6):432–437, 1994. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1994.tb01620.x

    1994

  19. [27]

    Factor structure of the 12-item general health questionnaire in the japanese general adult population

    Yuriko Doi and Masumi Minowa. Factor structure of the 12-item general health questionnaire in the japanese general adult population. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 57(4):379–383, 2003. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1819. 2003.01135.x

    2003 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Bennett, Richard J

    Wei Gao, Daniel Stark, Michael I. Bennett, Richard J. Siegert, Scott Murray, and Irene J. Higginson. Using the 12-item general health questionnaire to screen psychological distress from survivorship to end-of-life care: dimensionality and item quality. Psycho-Oncology, 21(9):9...

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    Factor structure and psychometric properties of the general health questionnaire (ghq-12) among ghanaian adolescents

    Franklin N Glozah and David J Pevalin and. Factor structure and psychometric properties of the general health questionnaire (ghq-12) among ghanaian adolescents. Journal of Child & Adolescent Mental Health, 27(1):53–57,

  22. [30]

    Clarification of the factor structure of the 12-item general health questionnaire among japanese adolescents and associated sleep status

    Hiroyuki Suzuki, Yoshitaka Kaneita, Yoneatsu Osaki, Masumi Minowa, Hideyuki Kanda, Kenji Suzuki, Kiyoshi Wada, Kenji Hayashi, Takeo Tanihata, and Takashi Ohida. Clarification of the factor structure of the 12-item general health questionnaire among japanese adolescents and ass...

    2011 doi

  23. [31]

    Establishing norms for mental well-being in young people (7–19 years) using the general health questionnaire-12

    Stephanie Centofanti, Kurt Lushington, Andrew Wicking, Peter Wicking, Andrew Fuller, Philip Janz, and Jillian Dorrian and. Establishing norms for mental well-being in young people (7–19 years) using the general health questionnaire-12. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(2):1...

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Watanabe

    S. Watanabe. Asymptotic equivalence of bayes cross validation and widely applicable information criterion in singular learning theory. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11:3571–3594, 2010. 21 BELTRÁN -SÁNCHEZ ET AL . S EPTEMBER 23, 2025 Supplemental material Figure S1: Pos...

    2010

  25. [2015]

    doi: 10.2989/17280583.2015.1007867

    2015

  26. [2018]

    doi: 10.1201/9781315182780

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.