ghq project 2010

8/2/2019 Ghq Project 2010

1/38

STUDY OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEN AND WOMENIN THE PREVALENCE OF PSYCHOLOGICALMORBIDITY USING GHQ.Submitted by

KOYELI SAHA

[Reg. no: 07PUA21007]

2007-2010.

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Mr. HAYASH TEENOTH

Lecturer, Department of Psychology

Acharya Institute of Graduate StudiesBangalore.


2/38

Submitted in partial fulfillment for the award of bachelors degree in arts 2010

Certificate

This is to certify that this project work entitled Study of difference

between men and women in the prevalence of psychological

morbidity is carried out by Ms. KOYELI SAHA, pursuing VI

semester BA at Acharya Institute of graduate studies, Bangalore, in

partial fulfillment of Bachelors degree in Arts.

DATE:

PLACE:

Mr. George Varied Thekkan Batch in charge

Head of the department Hayash TeenothDept. of Psychology Lecturer, Dept. of Psychology

A I G S A I G S

Bangalore. Bangalore.

Name: KOYELI SAHA

Register number: 07PUA21007

2


3/38

Contents

1. Introduction 3 9

2. Review of Literature 10 - 15

3. Research Methodology 16 17

4. Discussion and Analysis:

Individual discussions for women 19 - 24

Individual discussions for men 25 - 29

Group discussion for women 30 - 31

Group discussion for men 32 33

Comparison between data of the two groups 34 35

5. Conclusion 35

6. Bibliography 36

7. Appendix 37

3


4/38

Introduction

4


5/38

General Health Questionnaire

Developed in the 1970s, by David Goldberg, the General Health Questionnaire is a

method to quantify the risk of developing psychiatric disorders. This instrument targets two

areas the inability to carry out normal functions and the appearance of distress to assesswell-being in a person.

The GHQ is used to detect psychiatric disorder in the general population and within

community or non-psychiatric clinical settings such as primary care or general medical out-

patients. It assesses the respondents current state and asks if that differs from his or herusual state. It is therefore sensitive to short-term psychiatric disorders but not to long-

standing attributes of the respondent.

The format of the full GHQ is a 60-item test with a four-point scale for each response. The

test exits in several forms: GHQ-30 (30 items), GHQ-28 (28-items), GHQ-12 (12 items).

The GHQ is simple to administer, easy to complete and scoreand widely used in many

studies of (occupational) well-being.The GHQ can be scored in a variety of ways whichis

useful in providing multiple outcome measures. A furtheradvantage of the GHQis that it is

widely used in occupationalresearch, which allows simple comparisons with resultsobtainedin other studies. In using this tool with postgraduate studentsconducting research

in many areas of occupational health, the GHQ rarely fails to provide reliable and effective

measuresof well-being that usually correlate very highly with othermeasures of working

environments or organizations.

Validity and Reliability

The reported Cronbach alpha coefficient for the GHQ is a range of 0.82 to 0.86. The

instrument is considered as reliable and has been translated into 38 different languages.When correlated with the global quality of life scale, the GHQ showed negative

correlation. This demonstrates the inverse relationship with an increase in distress leading

to a decrease in quality of life.

5


6/38

Unique technical features of the GHQ-28:-

It is often of more interest to be able to examine a profile of scores rather than a single

score, making this version of the GHQ particularly useful. It contains 28 items that, throughfactor analysis, have been divided into four sub-scales. The GHQ-28 is the most well-

known and popular version of the GHQ. This scaled version of the GHQ has beendeveloped on the basis of the results of principal components analysis. The four sub-scales,

each containing seven items, are as follows:

A somatic symptoms (items 1-7)

B anxiety/insomnia (items 8-14)

C social dysfunction (items 15-21)

D severe depression (items 22-28)

There are no thresholds for individual sub-scales. Individual sub-scales are used for

providing individual diagnostic or profile information. For identifying case-ness with

GHQ-28, the total of the sub-scales is used.

Scoring of GHQ:-

All items have a 4 point scoring system that ranges from a 'better/healthier than normal'

option, through a 'same as usual' and a 'worse/more than usual' to a 'much worse/more than

usual' option. The exact wording will depend upon the particular nature of the item.

There are four possible methods of scoring the questionnaire:

GHQ scoring (0-0-1-1). This method is advocated by the test author.

Likert scoring (0-1-2-3)

Modified Likert scoring (0-0-1-2)

C-GHQ scoring (0-0-1-1) for positive items, where agreement indicates health, and0-1-1-1 for negative items, where agreement indicates illness).

For both GHQ and Likert scoring, the wording of the items mean that they can all be scored

in the same direction (no need to reverse score), so the higher the score, the more severe thecondition. The Likert scoring method will produce a wider and smoother score distribution

if a researcher wishes to assess severity and the C-GHQ method is more normally

distributed than the GHQ scoring method.

Modified Likert is inferior to simple Likert and may therefore be discarded. C-GHQscoring is a relatively specialized method and is useful only when it is important not to miss

cases with long-standing disorders.

The GHQ-28 is a scaled version, yielding four sub-scores, each based on seven items and a

total score.

6


7/38

Thresholds for GHQ:-

Thresholds are only relevant for screening use of the GHQ, i.e. for identifying case-ness.

In general, it is best if the user specifies their required threshold value, based on pastclinical use or research evidence relevant to their assessment circumstances. The following

gives some threshold values that can be entered as default options.

N.B. For people who are physically ill, a higher threshold than the default one will

probably be needed for optimal discrimination between cases and non-cases.

Suggested Default Thresholds

Suggested default threshold using:

GHQ GHQ Scoring Likert

GHQ12 1/2 (max score 12) 11/12 (max score 36)

GHQ28 4/5* (max score 28) 23/24 (max score 84)

GHQ30 4/5 (max score 30) --- (max score 90)GHQ60 11/12 (max score 60) --- (max score 180)

* advocated in 1978 GHQ Manual; 1997 WHO study (see reference above) had an averagethreshold, across all centres and languages, of 5/6 and reports a threshold of 6/7 for a

Manchester, UK sample. Turner & Lee advocate a cut-off of 12/13 as almost always

indicating a positive psychiatric condition in the PTSD context (see Easton, J.A. and

Turner, S.W. (1991) Detention of British citizens as hostages in the Gulf health,psychological, and family consequences. British Medical Journal, 303, 1231-1234).

The standard procedure for scoring missing data in GHQ is to count omitted items as low

scores. This applies to all four versions of the GHQ.

Sub-tests of GHQ:-

The GHQ contains 4 sub-tests:

1. Somatic symptoms

Headaches. These are fairly common in people with depression. If he/she

already had migraine headaches, they may seem worse.

Back pain. If you already suffer with back pain, it may be worse if you

become depressed.

Muscle aches and joint pain.

Chest pain: it's very important to get chest pain checked out by an expert

right away. It can be a sign of serious heart problems. But depression cancontribute to the discomfort associated with chest pain.

Digestive problems: feeling queasy or nauseous; diarrhea or chronic

constipation.

7


8/38

Exhaustion and fatigue: feeling tired or worn out no matter how much you

sleep. Getting out of the bed in the morning may seem very hard, evenimpossible.

Sleeping problems: can't sleep well anymore; waking up too early or not

able to fall asleep after going to bed. Others might sleep much more than

normal. Change in appetite or weight: loss of appetite and loss weight; craving

certain foods -- like carbohydrates.

Dizziness or lightheadedness.

2. Anxiety and Insomnia-

Anxiety: everyone experiences anxiety to some degree as a normal part of their lives. It is

actually a good thing in some situations as it prepares us to face danger by giving us more

energy and making us more alert. Anxiety becomes an illness when the feeling is constant

or is regularly triggered by events that wouldn't normal induce a feeling of anxiety. Thereare in fact 5 recognized anxiety disorders, these are:

Panic Disorder

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Generalized Anxiety Disorder

Phobias (including Social Phobia, also called Social Anxiety Disorder).

One of the most common psychological disorders resulting from constant anxiety is GAD.

The essential characteristic of Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) is excessive

uncontrollable worry about everyday things. This constant worry affects daily functioningand can cause physical symptoms. Sufferers may worry excessively about issues likedeadlines or appointments but they can also worry about everyday things that shouldn't

cause such strong feelings. Essentially, the feelings are out of proportion with the triggering

event. The focus of worry can also shift rapidly from one thing to another. The feeling ofanxiety can be constant so that whatever the sufferer thinks about, they associate with the

feelings and assume that to be the cause, however mundane the actual thing may be. The

major symptoms of Generalized Anxiety Disorder are:

Excessive worrying

Excessive fear

Inability to cope Muscle tension

Sweating

Nausea

Gastrointestinal discomfort or diarrhea

Cold clammy hands

Difficulty swallowing;

Jumpiness

8


9/38

Insomnia: Insomnia is a condition that is characterized by the sufferers inability to get

adequate restorative sleep. This can be due to any number of the following:

Difficulty falling asleep

Waking up frequently during the night with difficulty returning to sleep

Waking up too early in the morning Unrefreshing sleep

A lack of sleep can lead to a number of symptoms during the day. These can include:

Fatigue

Lack of energy

Difficulty concentrating

Irritability

Poor coordination

Insomnia is commonly caused by both depression and anxiety (or may be present alone)and can exacerbate the symptoms of those disorders, creating a vicious circle. Many other

factors can also cause insomnia; these include things like environmental factors (noise,temperature etc), change of sleeping environment, stress and physical illnesses/pain (such

as the aches and pains experienced with Environmental Illnesses).

3. Social dysfunction-

Social dysfunction is an umbrella term used to describe a variety of emotional problemslargely experienced in social situations. It is also one of the diagnostic criteria of

psychological disorders like schizophrenia, autism, and some forms of anxiety disorders

and personality disorders. Social dysfunction includes problems such as:

Behavior inappropriate to circumstances

Lack of affective contact

Detachment from social life

Problems in making and keeping friends

Problems in getting along with others in social settings

Trouble in concentrating

Serious difficulty in coping with day-to-day stress

Shyness, unreasonably strong fears, and excessive sweating in social settings.

Deviance from the rules and expectations of ones own social context.

Inability to satisfy social demands and to perform social roles appropriately.

9


10/38

4. Severe depression-

Depression: Everyone feels depressed at some time in their life for any number of reasons.

An event like the end of a relationship gives everyone feelings of sadness and loss, butthese feelings subside over time and you feel normal again. In the case of clinical

depression, the feelings are generally more intense or of much longer duration, or both.Along with feelings of sadness that someone with depression experiences, it also causes a

number of physical symptoms, the most obvious being fatigue. As fatigue is probably themost prominent symptom of Environmental Illnesses as well, if you have both then the

problem is magnified.

The major symptoms of Major Depression are:

Loss of energy and interest

Diminished ability to enjoy oneself

Decreased -- or increased -- sleeping or appetite

Difficulty in concentrating; indecisiveness; slowed or fuzzy thinking Exaggerated feelings of sadness, hopelessness, or anxiety

Feelings of worthlessness

Recurring thoughts about death and suicide.

If a person has been experiencing most of these symptoms for a period lasting longer than afew weeks, especially if there is no reason to feel down, he/she is probably suffering from

depression.

Another form of depression, that commonly affects environmental illness sufferers, is

known as Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). This disorder can take the form of either

major depression or bipolar depression, but only occurs during certain times of the year,usually through the winter months (winter depression). This is thought to be due to lack of

sunlight exposure during the winter and tends to be more common the further north youlive.

10


11/38

Review

Of

Literature

11


12/38

REVIEW: 1

GHQ-28 as an aid to detect mental disorders in neurological

inpatients

Abstract

Lykouras L, Adrachta D, Kalfakis N, Oulis P, Voulgari A, Christodoulou GN,Papageorgiou C, Stefanis C. GHQ-28 as an aid to detect mental disorders in neurological

inpatients.

The prevalence of mental disorders (DSM-IIIR criteria) among 107 neurological inpatientswas estimated, as well as the extent to which disorders were detected by neurologists. Thevalidity of the scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28) was evaluated

using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis and DSM-IIIR as external criteria.

Of the 107 patients who submitted to a structured psychiatric interview (SCID-R), 56(52.3%) showed evidence of a mental disorder. Major depressive episode (n= 16),

generalized anxiety disorders (n = 13) and dysthymia (n = 12) were the most frequent

diagnoses. The neurologists recognized only 13/107 cases (12.1%). Significantly more

women than men exhibited some form of mental disorder. The validation of GHQ-28 in theseries of 107 neurological inpatients indicated that the best trade-off between sensitivity

and specificity was the cut-off score of 5/6. The high occurrence of mental disorder, in

association with the low rate of detection by the neurologists, points to the need for specialattention to be paid to this problem by staff and experts.

REVIEW: 2

12


13/38

Job Insecurity and Psychological Well-being: Review of the

Literature and Exploration of Some Unresolved Issues

Author: Hans De Witte

Abstract

Research on the psychological consequences of job insecurity is reviewed, showing that job

insecurity reduces psychological well-being and job satisfaction, and increases

psychosomatic complaints and physical strains. Next, three additional research questionsare addressed, since these questions did not receive much attention in previous research.

First, does the impact of job insecurity on workers differ according to their professional

position, gender, and age? Second, how important is job insecurity compared to otherstressors on the work floor? Third, how important is job insecurity compared to the impact

of unemployment? To analyze these issues, data were used from a Belgian plant, part of a

European multinational company in the metalworking industry (N = 336). The results ofthis exploratory study showed that job insecurity was associated with lower well-being

(score on the GHQ-12), after controlling for background variables, such as gender and age.

A significant interaction with gender occurred, indicating that gender moderated the

association between job insecurity and well-being. Job insecurity was not related topsychological well-being among women. Among men, a significant increase in distress was

noted among those who felt insecure, but not among the secure. Interaction terms for

occupational position and age were not statistically significant. Job insecurity turned out tobe one of the most distressful aspects of the work situation. The GHQ-scores of the

insecure respondents were not different from those of a representative sample of short-term

unemployed, suggesting both experiences to be equally harmful. The consequences of these

findings for future research are discussed.

REVIEW: 3

13


14/38

Risk Factors Associated With the Transition from Acute to

Chronic Occupational Back Pain

Fransen, Marlene PhD; Woodward, Mark PhD; Norton, Robyn PhD; Coggan, CarolynPhD; Dawe, Martin BA; Sheridan, Nicolette MPH

Abstract

Study Design. A prospective cohort study was conducted on workers claiming earnings-

related compensation for low back pain. Information obtained at the time of the initial

claim was linked to compensation status (still claiming or not claiming) 3 months later.

Objective: To identify individual, psychosocial, and workplace risk factors associated withthe transition from acute to chronic occupational back pain.

Summary of Background Data: Despite the magnitude of the economic and social costs

associated with chronic occupational back pain, few prospective studies have investigatedrisk factors identifiable in the acute stage.

Methods: At the time of the initial compensation claim, a self-administered questionnaire

was used to gather information on a wide range of risk factors. Then 3 months later,

chronicity was determined from claimants' computerized records.

Results: The findings showed that 3 months after the initial assessment, 204 of the recruited854 claimants (23.9%) still were receiving compensation payments. A combined multiple

regression model of individual, psychosocial, and workplace risk factors demonstrated that

severe leg pain (odds ratio [OR], 1.9), obesity (OR, 1.7), all three Oswestry DisabilityIndex categories above minimal disability (OR, 3.1-4), a General Health Questionnaire

score of at least 6 (OR, 1.9), unavailability of light duties on return to work (OR, 1.7), and a

job requirement of lifting for three fourths of the day or more all were significant,independent determinants of chronicity (P< 0.05).

Conclusions: Simple self-report measures of individual, psychosocial, and workplace

factors administered when earnings-related compensation for back pain is claimed initially

can identify individuals with increased odds for development of chronic occupationaldisability.

REVIEW: 4

14


15/38

Unemployment and suicidal behavior: A review of the

literature

Stephen Platt

MRC Unit for Epidemiological Studies in Psychiatry, University Department of Psychiatry,

Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Morningside Park, Edinburgh EH10 5HF, Scotland

Abstract

In order to provide a framework for reviewing the voluminous literature on unemployment

and suicidal behavior, the author distinguishes between two categories of deliberately self-

harmful act: those with fatal outcome (suicide) and those with non-fatal outcome(Parasuicide); and differentiates four major types of quantitative research report: individual

cross-sectional; aggregatecross-sectional; individual-longitudinal; and aggregate-

longitudinal. Methodological issues and empirical research findings are discussedseparately for each type of study and each category of deliberate self-harm.

Cross-sectional individual studies reveal that significantly more parasuicides and suicides

are unemployed than would be expected among general population samples. Likewise,

parasuicide and suicide rates among the unemployed are always considerably higher thanamong the employed. Aggregatecross-sectional studies provide no evidence of a

consistent relationship between unemployment and completed suicide, but a significant

geographical association between unemployment and parasuicide was found. Results fromall but one of the individual longitudinal studies point to significantly more unemployment,

job instability and occupational problems among suicides compared to non-suicides. The

aggregate longitudinal analyses reveal a significant positive association betweenunemployment and suicide in the United States of America and some European countries.

The negative relationship in Great Britain during the 1960s and early 1970s has been

shown to result from a unique decline in suicide rates due to the unavailability of the most

common method of suicide.

However, despite the firm evidence of an association between unemployment and suicidal

behavior, the nature of this association remains highly problematic. On the basis of the

available data, the author suggests that macro-economic conditions, although not directly

influencing the suicide rate, may nevertheless constitute an important antecedent variable inthe causal chain leading to self-harmful behavior. Further empirical research based on a

longitudinal design is recommended as a matter of urgency so that a more definitive

assessment of the etiological significance of unemployment in parasuicide may be made.

15


16/38

REVIEW: 5

The Effect of Mild to Moderate Dementia on the Geriatric

Depression Scale and on the General Health Questionnaire

T. G. O'RIORDAN, J. P. HAYES, D. O'NEILL, R. SHELLEY, J. B. WALSH and D.

COAKLEY

The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and two versions of theGeneral Health

Questionnaire (GHQ28 and corrected GHQ28) wereadministered to 111 patients admittedto an acute geriatricmedical unit. Depression and dementia were diagnosed by semi-

structuredinterview using DSM III criteria. There was no statisticallysignificant difference

in the three scales between cognitivelynormal depressed patients and demented depressed

patients. The

three scales were sensitive indicators of depressive illness

(> 90o), but theGHQ28 and CGHQ28 needed adjustment of their community-based threshold values.

16


17/38

Research

Methodology

Problem: To assess presence of psychological morbidity in men and women.

17


18/38

Hypothesis: There will be no difference between men and women in the prevalence ofpsychological morbidity.

Plan: Administer the GHQ and find out the total score of the subjects and interpret withreference to the norms. Then compare the results of the two groups.

Research design: Single subject design

Sample: Ten men and ten women between 25 - 30 age groups.

Materials:

1. General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)2. Manual and scoring key

3. Writing materials

Instructions:

I would like to know if you had any medical complaint and how your health has been in

general over the past few weeks. Reply to the questions simply by putting a tick mark

before the answers which you think most applies to you. Remember that I want to knowabout present and recent complaints, and not those that you had in the past. It is important

that you try to answer all the questions.

Analysis of data:

1. A score of zero is given to the first two answers and a score of one is given to the

remaining two answers.

2. The number of items identified by the subject is found out. Add the raw scores in

all the four dimensions.3. Individuals with a total score of 5 and above are considered to be possible cases of

psychological morbidity.

18


19/38

Discussion

AND

ANALYSIS

Individual discussion for women:-

19


20/38

1. Table showing the number of problems identified by the subject in the four sub-

scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

G.K 0 0 0 0 0

The experiment was conducted on G.K, 25 yrs. Female, postgraduate student.

The table shows that the subject has scored 0 in each of the sub-scales of GHQ.Therefore the subjects total score is also 0. Since this score is below 5, it indicates that

the subject cannot be considered a possible case of psychological morbidity. She is not

suffering from any kind of psychological distress.

Conclusion:

The subject is not psychologically morbid.


scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

S.N 1 1 1 0 3

The experiment was conducted on SN, 25 yrs. Female, postgraduate student.

The subject has scored 1 in somatic symptoms, 1 in anxiety insomnia, 1 in socialdysfunction, and 0 in severe depression. The subjects total score is 3. Since this

score is below 5, it indicates that the subject cannot be considered as a possible case

of psychological morbidity. The subject has shown some problems though, like notfeeling perfectly well and in good health, feeling of everything getting on top of

her, and not managing to keep herself busy and occupied (much less than usual).

Conclusion:



scales.

20


21/38

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

S.R 4 7 6 0 17

The experiment was conducted on S.R, 26 yrs, working woman.

The subject has scored 4 in somatic symptoms, 7 in anxiety insomnia, 6 in social

dysfunction, and 0 in severe depression. The subjects total score is 17. Since thisscore is much above 5, it indicates that the subject can be considered a possible case

of psychological morbidity. In the area of somatic symptoms the subject has

indicated problems like not feeling perfectly well and in good health, feeling of pain

and tightness/pressure in the head, and having frequent hot/cold spells. In the areaof anxiety insomnia the subject has indicated problems like losing much sleep over

worry, having difficulty in staying asleep, feeling constantly under strain, and

getting edgy and bad tempered, feeling scared and panicky for no good reason, andfeeling nervous and strung up all the time. In the area of social dysfunction the

subject has indicated problems like taking longer time over doing things, not feeling

satisfied with the way she has carried out the task, feeling less useful in playing apart in things, felt less capable of making decisions, and not being able to enjoy

normal day-to-day activities. In the area of severe depression the subject has not

indicated any problems.

Conclusion:

The subject might be psychologically morbid.

21


22/38


scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

C.R 0 0 1 0 1

The experiment was conducted on C.R, 25 yrs, female, undergraduate student.The subject has scored 0 in each of the sub-scales somatic symptoms, anxiety

insomnia, and severe depression. The subject has scored 1 in the area of social

dysfunction. She has indicated the problem of feeling less satisfied than usual with

the way she carried out her tasks. The subject has a total score of 1, which indicatesthat the subject cannot be considered as a possible case of psychological morbidity.

Conclusion:



scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

G.C 0 3 2 0 5

The experiment was conducted on G.C, 26 yrs, working woman.The subject has scored 0 in somatic symptoms, 3 in anxiety insomnia, 2 in social

dysfunction, and 0 in severe depression. The subjects total score is 5 which

indicates that the subject can be considered as a possible case of psychologicalmorbidity. She has indicated problems like losing much sleep over worry, having

difficulty in staying asleep, getting scared and panicky for no good reason, feeling

of not doing things well, and feeling much less satisfied with the way she carriedout her tasks.

Conclusion:

The subject can be considered as a possible case of psychological morbidity.


scales.

22


23/38

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

S.V 4 2 0 0 6

The experiment was conducted on S.V, 28 yrs, working woman.


dysfunction and severe depression. The subjects total score is 6 which indicatesthat the subject can be considered as a possible case of psychological morbidity.

The subject has indicated problems like not feeling perfectly well and in good

health, feeling rundown and out of sorts, pain and tightness/pressure in the head,

having difficulty in staying asleep, and feeling constantly under strain.

Conclusion:



scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

K.M 3 4 0 0 7

The experiment was conducted on K.M, 26 yrs, female, and exe.postgraduate

student.The subject has scored 3 in somatic symptoms, 4 in anxiety insomnia, 0 in social

dysfunction and severe depression. The subjects total score is 7 which indicates

that the subject can be considered as a possible case of psychological morbidity.The subject has indicated problems like feeling pain and tightness/pressure in the

head, having frequent hot or cold spells, losing much sleep over worry, having

difficulty in staying asleep, feeling constantly under strain, and getting scared andpanicky for no good reason.

Conclusion:


23


24/38


scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

S.D 0 0 0 0 0

The experiment was conducted on S.D, 26 yrs, working woman.

The table shows that the subject has scored 0 in each of the sub-scales of GHQ.

Therefore the subjects total score is also 0. Since this score is below 5, it indicates that

the subject cannot be considered a possible case of psychological morbidity. She is notsuffering from any kind of psychological distress.

Conclusion:



scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

M.K 4 3 1 0 8

The experiment was conducted on M.K, 26 yrs, female, and exe.postgraduate

student.The subject has scored 4 in somatic symptoms, 3 in anxiety insomnia, 1 in social


indicates that the subject can be considered as a possible case of psychologicalmorbidity. The subject has indicated problems like feeling pain and

tightness/pressure in the head, having frequent hot or cold spells, having difficulty

in staying asleep, feeling constantly under strain, getting scared and panicky for nogood reason, and taking longer time over the things she does.

Conclusion:


24


25/38


scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

H.M.R 0 3 2 1 6

The experiment was conducted on H.M.R, 25 yrs, female, undergraduate student.The subject has scored 0 in somatic symptoms, 3 in anxiety insomnia, 2 in social


indicates that the subject can be considered as a possible case of psychological

morbidity. The subject has indicated problems like losing much sleep over worry,having difficulty in staying asleep, getting scared and panicky for no good reason,

feeling of not doing things well, feeling much less satisfied with the way she carried

out her tasks, and giving thought to the possibility of committing suicide.

Conclusion:


25


26/38

Individual discussion for men:-


scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

M.K 2 3 1 0 6

The experiment was conducted on M.K, 25 yrs, working male.The subject has scored 2 in somatic symptoms, 3 in anxiety insomnia, 1 in social



morbidity. The subject has indicated problems like feeling pain andtightness/pressure in the head, losing much sleep over worry, feeling constantly

under strain, getting edgy and bad tempered, and feeling less satisfied with the way

you have carried out your task.

Conclusion:



scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

B.S 1 3 0 0 4

The experiment was conducted on B.S, 25 yrs, working male.


dysfunction and severe depression. The subjects total score is 4 which indicates

that the subject cannot be considered as a possible case of psychological morbidity.The subject has indicated problems like feeling pain in the head, feeling constantly

under strain, feeling of everything getting on top of him, and feeling nervous andstrung up all the time.

Conclusion:

The subject cannot be considered as a possible case of psychological morbidity.

26


27/38


scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

R.V 4 2 2 1 9

The experiment was conducted on R.V, 25 yrs, male, postgraduate student.The subject has scored 4 in somatic symptoms, 2 in anxiety insomnia, 2 in social



morbidity. The subject has indicated problems like feeling pain andtightness/pressure in the head, losing much sleep over worry, getting edgy and bad

tempered, feeling of not doing things well and being less satisfied with the he

carried out his tasks, and not being able to do anything due to bad nerves.

Conclusion:


4. Table showing the number of problems identified by the subject in the four sub-scales.

NameSomaticsymptoms

Anxietyinsomnia

Socialdysfunction

Severedepression

Totalscore

R.K 2 1 1 0 4

The experiment was conducted on R.K, 25 yrs, male, undergraduate student.


dysfunction, and 0 in severe depression. The subjects total score is 4 whichindicates that the subject cannot be considered as a possible case of psychological

morbidity. The subject has indicated problems like feeling in need of a good tonic,

having frequent hot or cold spells, been getting edgy and bad tempered, and feelingless satisfied with the way he carried out his tasks.

Conclusion:


27


28/38


scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

V.S 1 0 0 1 2

The experiment was conducted on B.S, 25 yrs, working male.The subject has scored 1 in somatic symptoms, 0 in anxiety insomnia and social


indicates that the subject cannot be considered as a possible case of psychological

morbidity. The subject has indicated problems like feeling rundown and out ofsorts, and giving thought to the possibility of committing suicide.

Conclusion:



scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

A.A 0 0 0 1 1

The experiment was conducted on A.A, 25 yrs, working male.The subject has scored 0 in somatic symptoms, anxiety insomnia, and social


indicates that the subject cannot be considered as a possible case of psychologicalmorbidity. The subject has indicated that the thought of committing suicide has

crossed his mind.

Conclusion:


28


29/38


scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

P.M 2 2 2 1 7

The experiment was conducted on B.S, 25 yrs, male, undergraduate student.The subject has scored 2 in somatic symptoms, 2 in anxiety insomnia, 2 in social



morbidity. The subject has indicated problems like not feeling perfectly well and ingood health, having frequent hot or cold spells, losing much sleep over worry

feeling constantly under strain, taking longer time over to do things, less able to

enjoy his normal day-to-day activities, and wishing himself dead and away from itall.

Conclusion:



scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

A.S 2 3 2 3 10

The experiment was conducted on B.S, 25 yrs, male, graduate.

The subject has scored 2 in somatic symptoms, 3 in anxiety insomnia, 2 in socialdysfunction, and 3 in severe depression. The subjects total score is 10 which


morbidity. The subject has indicated problems like feeling pain andtightness/pressure in the head, having difficulty in staying asleep, getting scared and

panicky for no good reason, feeling nervous and strung up all the time, feeling ofnot being able to do things well, feeling less capable of making decisions about

things, thinking himself as a worthless person, wishing himself dead and away fromit all, and thinking about committing suicide.

Conclusion:


29


30/38


scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

A.K 2 3 1 0 6

The experiment was conducted on A.K, 25 yrs, male, undergraduate student.The subject has scored 2 in somatic symptoms, 3 in anxiety insomnia, 1 in social



morbidity. The subject has indicated problems like not feeling perfectly well and ingood health, feeling constantly under strain, finding everything getting on top of

him, and feeling less capable of making decisions about things.

Conclusion:



scales.

Name

Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total

score

S.S 1 3 0 1 5

The experiment was conducted on S.S, 25 yrs, working male.The subject has scored 1 in somatic symptoms, 3 in anxiety insomnia, 0 in social


indicates that the subject can be considered as a possible case of psychologicalmorbidity. The subject has indicated problems like feeling of tightness/pressure in

the head, losing much sleep over worry, having difficulty in staying asleep, feeling

constantly under strain, and thought of committing suicide.

Conclusion:


30


31/38

Group discussion for women:-

Table showing the number of problems identified by the group in the four sub-scales:

Sl.

No.

Name Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total score

1. G.K 0 0 0 0 0

2. S.N 1 1 1 0 3

3. S.R 4 7 6 0 17

4. C.R 0 0 1 0 1

5. G.C 0 3 2 0

5

6. S.V 4 2 0 0 6

7. K.M 3 4 0 0 7

8. S.D 0 0 0 0 0

9. M.K 4 3 1 0 8

10. H.R 0 3 2 1 6

TOTAL 16 23 13 1 53

MEAN 1.6

2.3 1.3 0.1 5.3

31


32/38

1.6

2.3

1.3

0.1

5.3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

mean scores

Subtests of GHQ

Group data for women

I

II

III

IV

total score

The above table and graph shows the scores of the group of women in the GHQ. The grouphas scored a mean of:

1.6 in subtest I: Somatic Symptoms;

2.3 in subtest II: Anxiety Insomnia;

1.3 in subtest III: Social Dysfunction; and

0.1 in subtest IV: Severe Depression.

The group has a mean total score of 5.3. This indicates that the group exhibits a fair amount

of psychological distress. The group has shown the most number of problems in the area of

anxiety the least in the area of severe depression.Individual differences exist among the members of the group.

32


33/38

Group discussion for men:-

Table showing the number of problems identified by the group in the four sub-scales:

Sl.

No.

Name Somatic

symptoms

Anxiety

insomnia

Social

dysfunction

Severe

depression

Total score

1. M.K 2 3 1 0 6

2. B.S 1 3 0 0 4

3. R.V 4 2 2 1 9

4. R.K 2 1 1 0 4

5. V.S 1 0 0 1

2

6. A.A 0 0 0 1 1

7. P.M 2 2 2 1 7

8. A.S 2 3 2 3 10

9. A.K 2 3 1 0 6

10. S.S 1 3 0 1 5

TOTAL 17 20 9 8 55

MEAN 1.7

2.0 0.9 0.8 5.5

33


34/38

1.72

0.9 0.8

5.5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

mean scores

Subtests of GHQ

Group data for men

I

II

III

IV

total score

The above table and graph shows the scores of the group of men in the GHQ. The grouphas scored a mean of:

1.7 in subtest I: Somatic Symptoms;

2.0 in subtest II: Anxiety Insomnia;

0.9 in subtest III: Social Dysfunction; and

0.8 in subtest IV: Severe Depression.

The group has a mean total score of 5.5. This indicates that the group exhibits a fair amount

of psychological distress. The group has shown the most number of problems in the area of

anxiety the least in the area of severe depression.Individual differences exist among the members of the group.

34


35/38

Comparison between men and women in the

prevalence of psychological morbidity:

Graph showing the trends in

psychological distress in men and

women

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

I II III IV

totals

core

sub-scales of GHQ

meanscores

men

women

The above graph shows the differences between men and women in the prevalence of

psychological morbidity. Both men and women have shown the presence of a considerable

amount of psychological distress. The mean total scores are therefore quite close i.e.

5.5(men) and 5.3(women). Psychological morbidity has been found to be slightly moreprevalent in men.

In sub-scale I: Somatic symptoms, both men and women have scored low and

almost equal i.e. 1.7(men) and 1.6(women). Men have shown a slightly greater

amount of somatic symptoms.

In sub-scale II: Anxiety Insomnia, women have shown a greater amount of

symptoms than men i.e. 2.0(men) and 2.3(women).

In sub-scale III: Social dysfunction, women have shown a much greater amount of

symptoms than men i.e. 0.9(men) and 1.3(women).

35


36/38

In sub-scale IV: Severe Depression, men have shown a much greater amount of

symptoms than women i.e. 0.8(men) and 0.1(women).

Among women, psychological morbidity has been found to be more in working women and

women studying in executive degrees. It is quite less in undergraduate and postgraduate

students. Among men, psychological morbidity has been found to be almost equallydistributed among undergraduate, postgraduate, working, and unemployed men. Depressive

tendencies, however, is more in unemployed men.

Conclusion:

The above data and graphs have rejected the null hypothesis that there is no

difference between men and women in the prevalence of psychological

morbidity.

36


37/38

Bibliography:

Science Direct

Statistical Solutions

WebMD

GL Assessment InformaWorld

Amazon.com

HealthyPlace.com

Oxford Journals, Oxford University Press

37


38/38

Appendix

ghq project 2010

Documents