dc.contributor.authorEsteller‐Collado, Gabriel
dc.contributor.authorPrieto-Vila, Maider
dc.contributor.authorAntuña-Camblor, Celia
dc.contributor.authorCarpallo‐González, María
dc.contributor.authorGonzález‐Blanch, César
dc.contributor.authorRuíz‐Rodríguez, Paloma
dc.contributor.authorMoriana, Juan Antonio
dc.contributor.authorMedrano, Leonardo Adrián
dc.contributor.authorCano‐Vindel, Antonio
dc.contributor.authorMuñoz‐Navarro, Roger
dc.date.accessioned2026-06-15T08:21:15Z
dc.date.available2026-06-15T08:21:15Z
dc.date.issued2026-06-12
dc.identifier.issn1557-0657
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12226/3381
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: The high comorbidity between depression and anxiety challenges traditional nosological models. In order to better reflect this overlap, dimensional approaches seek to clarify whether these symptoms reflect a single underlying construct of general distress or a more complex multidimensionality. The aim was to examine the underlying structure of depression and anxiety symptoms, measured by the PHQ‐9 and GAD‐7, by estimating and comparing three factor models: one‐factor, two‐factor correlated, and bifactor. Methods: Data from 1704 primary care (PC) patients from the PsicAP clinical trial were analysed. Dimensionality was assessed using hierarchical Exploratory Graph Analysis (EGA), and models were estimated using Exploratory Structural Equation Modelling (ESEM). Model fit was compared using the χ2, CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR indices. Results: The bifactor model offered the most acceptable comparative fit to the data (CFI = 0.956; TLI = 0.928; RMSEA = 0.076; SRMR = 0.028). Bifactor indices revealed a relevant but not dominant general factor (ECV = 0.40), indicating it does not account for sufficient variance to justify an essentially unidimensional interpretation. Furthermore, the specific factors of depression and anxiety emerged as well‐defined constructs (H > 0.75) with modest reliable specific variance (ωHS: 0.22 and 0.27, respectively). Discussion: The findings suggest a hierarchical structure where a general factor of distress coexists with specific factors. This suggests the potential utility of considering a multi‐level perspective in clinical assessment, accounting for both shared distress and specific symptom profiles.es
dc.language.isoenes
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.titleThe Latent Structure of Depression and Anxiety Symptoms: A Bifactor Exploratory Structural Equation Model of the PHQ‐9 and GAD‐7 in Primary Carees
dc.typearticlees
dc.description.course2025-26es
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.70089
dc.journal.titleInternational Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Researches
dc.page.initial1es
dc.page.final11es
dc.publisher.departmentDepartamento de Psicología y Saludes
dc.publisher.facultyFacultad de Psicología y Ciencias de la Saludes
dc.publisher.group(GI-25/6) Grupo de Investigación en Trauma Psicológicoes
dc.relation.projectIDPID2019‐107243RB‐C21, PID2019‐ 107243RB‐C22 and CPP2023‐010817es
dc.rights.accessRightsopenAccesses
dc.subject.keywordanxietyes
dc.subject.keywordbifactor modeles
dc.subject.keyworddepressiones
dc.subject.keywordexploratory structural equation modellinges
dc.subject.keywordprimary carees
dc.subject.keywordtransdiagnostices
dc.indice.jcrQ2


Ficheros en el ítem

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro sencillo del ítem

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional
Excepto si se señala otra cosa, la licencia del ítem se describe como Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional