Normative data for the HADS from a large non-clinical sample.

By John R. Crawford, Julie D. Henry, C. Crombie, E. Taylor. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 2001

847 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine, General Health Professions, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/01af54d5b1bff72aef9215a7a8edb4ac32a97fe0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

1. Neil Harrington
2. A. Mykletun
3. John R. Crawford
4. A. Dahl
5. Julie D. Henry

In General Health Professions

1. John R. Crawford
2. Julie D. Henry
3. Neil Harrington
4. A. Mykletun
5. A. Dahl
6. P. Norton
7. H. Orcutt
8. Nikos Ntoumanis

In Social Psychology

1. John R. Crawford
2. Julie D. Henry
3. Neil Harrington
4. P. Wilson
5. C. Cayley
6. Peter Lovibond
7. C. Hartley
8. A. Dahl

Citations in the corpus

• Long-term complications of critical care (2011, background): “These prevalence findings are markedly higher than in the general population (7%–8%) (83, 84) and after myocardial infarction (14%) (85).”
• Frustration Intolerance Beliefs: Their Relationship with Depression, Anxiety, and Anger, in a Clinical Population (2006, positive): “However, recent British normative data enables the scale to be used as a continuous measure, consistent with the assumption that anxiety and depressed mood are dimensional constructs (Crawford et al., 2001).”
• The hospital anxiety and depression rating scale: A cross-sectional study of psychometrics and case finding abilities in general practice (2005, background): “However, studies have shown that in non-clinical samples chronic somatic problems [16] and demographic variations [31] have only modest influence on the HADS scores.”
• Effects of Brief Mindfulness-Based Interventions on Health-Related Outcomes: a Systematic Review (2019, methodology): “Moodrelated measures were the next most frequently employed, with 15 different measures used in 48 instances—over half (n = 25) of these studies employed the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (Crawford et al. 2001).”
• Percentile Norms and Accompanying Interval Estimates from an Australian General Adult Population Sample for Self‐Report Mood Scales (BAI, BDI, CRSD, CES‐D, DASS, DASS‐21, STAI‐X, STAI‐Y, SRDS, and SRAS) (2011, methodology): “In some circumstances, it would be useful to have a single measure of GPD for each scale (Crawford et al., 2001; Spinhoven et al., 1997); see Cole (1987) and Tanaka and Huba (1984) for further discussion of the rationale for the construct of GPD.”
• The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): construct validity, measurement properties and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. (2004, methodology): “Normative data are now available for all three scales in a form that is equivalent to that presented here for the PANAS (Crawford & Henry, 2003; Crawford, Henry, Crombie, & Taylor, 2001; Henry, Crawford, Bedford, Crombie, & Taylor, 2002); that is, they consist of percentile tables derived from lar”