GAD-7 and Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Screening vs Diagnosis
Updated: Oct 8
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 30, 2026 · Editorial Policy
The GAD-7 can help identify people whose recent anxiety symptoms warrant closer assessment, and it can quantify symptom severity over a two-week period. It cannot by itself diagnose generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). A GAD-7 result is a screening and symptom-measurement result; a GAD diagnosis is a clinical conclusion based on the pattern, duration, impact, context, and differential diagnosis of a person's symptoms.
This distinction matters because the questionnaire and the disorder overlap without being equivalent. The GAD-7 was originally developed to identify probable GAD and assess severity, but a seven-item, two-week self-report measure cannot reproduce the full diagnostic process. A score above a commonly used cutoff can occur without GAD, and a score below that cutoff can occur in someone who does meet GAD criteria.
For the instrument itself, see GAD-7: What the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale Measures. For numeric score bands and cutoffs, see GAD-7 Score: What the Results Mean and What They Do Not Diagnose. This page owns the narrower question: how a GAD-7 screen relates to a clinical diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder.
GAD-7 Screening and GAD Diagnosis Answer Different Questions
Screening asks whether a brief pattern of reported symptoms makes a condition plausible enough to justify further evaluation. Diagnosis asks whether the person actually meets the requirements for a particular clinical disorder after the clinician has considered symptom pattern, duration, distress or impairment, competing explanations, comorbidity, substances and medications, and relevant medical conditions.
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force makes this boundary explicit: anxiety screening tools alone are insufficient to diagnose anxiety disorders, and a positive screen needs confirmatory diagnostic assessment. The American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5-TR assessment-measures guidance likewise states that symptom and severity measures are intended to enhance clinical decision-making rather than serve as the sole basis for diagnosis.
The GAD-7 therefore belongs inside an assessment pathway rather than above it. It compresses recent self-reported symptoms into a standardized total. A clinician then has to determine what those symptoms mean. For the broader workflow, see How Is Anxiety Diagnosed? Assessment, History, and Differential Diagnosis and Anxiety Screening vs Diagnosis: Why a Questionnaire Is Not a Clinical Diagnosis.
Why the Name GAD-7 Creates Diagnostic Confusion
The name invites a simple but incorrect inference: if the questionnaire is called the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale, then a high score must mean generalized anxiety disorder. The history of the scale explains why the relationship is closer and more useful than that inference suggests, while still falling short of diagnosis.
In the original 2006 validation study, Spitzer and colleagues developed the GAD-7 as a brief self-report measure to identify probable cases of GAD and assess severity. The study included 2,740 primary-care patients, with 965 receiving an independent mental-health interview. The scale showed good reliability and validity, and a cutoff was identified that balanced sensitivity and specificity in that study.
The word probable is crucial. A screening instrument estimates whether a diagnostic target may be present. It does not convert the name of that target into the respondent's diagnosis. Later research also showed that GAD-7 scores can reflect broader anxiety symptom burden. In a 2007 primary-care study, the scale showed screening utility across several anxiety disorders, while later psychiatric-sample research found that it could behave well as an anxiety severity measure even when specificity for a particular diagnosis was limited.
This is why a GAD-7 total can be clinically informative without being diagnostically decisive. The scale is related to GAD by design and evidence, yet the score is still a measurement of recent responses to seven questions.
What the GAD-7 Actually Establishes
A completed GAD-7 establishes what the respondent reported about the frequency of seven anxiety-related experiences during the previous two weeks, scored according to the validated response options. The conventional total ranges from 0 to 21. Higher totals mean that the covered symptoms were reported more frequently across that reference period.
That information can support several legitimate uses. It can flag possible clinically important anxiety, quantify a baseline level of symptom burden, help structure follow-up questions, and track changes over time when the same instrument is repeated under comparable conditions.
The scale has a substantial psychometric literature. A German general-population validation study supported reliability and a largely one-dimensional structure, and multiple diagnostic-accuracy syntheses have evaluated how well different GAD-7 cutoffs identify GAD. These findings justify using the instrument as a standardized measure. They do not justify treating the total as a diagnosis.
What a GAD Diagnosis Requires That the GAD-7 Does Not Establish
Generalized anxiety disorder is a clinical syndrome, not a score range. Current diagnostic systems describe a sustained pattern of generalized anxiety or excessive worry, difficulty controlling it, associated symptoms, and clinically meaningful consequences. The exact wording and organization differ between DSM-5-TR and ICD-11, but both require substantially more information than the GAD-7 provides.
Duration
The GAD-7 asks about the previous two weeks. By contrast, the National Institute of Mental Health summarizes the DSM-based adult GAD framework as requiring difficult-to-control anxiety or worry on most days for at least six months, together with associated symptoms. WHO materials on anxiety disorders describe GAD and other anxiety disorders as extended patterns that persist for at least several months, consistent with the ICD-11 clinical framework.
A two-week questionnaire can therefore measure the intensity of the present window but cannot prove the required longitudinal pattern. Someone can score high during an acute crisis, illness, bereavement, major life transition, sleep disruption, or another short-lived period of distress without having GAD. Someone with established GAD can also have a relatively good two-week period and score lower.
The full symptom pattern
The seven GAD-7 items overlap with important features of generalized anxiety, including nervousness, difficulty controlling worry, worry about different things, restlessness, irritability, difficulty relaxing, and fearful anticipation. They do not directly assess every associated feature that matters in a GAD diagnosis. Adult diagnostic assessment may also need to establish fatigue, concentration difficulty, muscle tension, and sleep disturbance, among other contextual details.
The result is a clinically useful sample of the syndrome rather than a one-to-one copy of the diagnostic requirements. A scale can be valid precisely because it samples efficiently; efficiency is also the reason it cannot substitute for a full diagnostic interview.
Excessiveness, breadth, and control of worry
Diagnosis requires more than the presence of anxious thoughts. The clinician needs to understand what the person worries about, how broadly the worry spreads across everyday domains, whether it is experienced as excessive in context, how difficult it is to control, and whether the pattern is persistent. A total score cannot reconstruct the content and organization of worry from the arithmetic alone.
Distress and functional impairment
The GAD-7 is strongly associated with functional impairment, but association is not the same as direct diagnostic determination. Standard forms often include a separate question about how difficult the symptoms have made work, home responsibilities, or relationships; that question is not part of the seven-item 0–21 total. Clinical assessment examines the person's actual functioning in context.
This is consistent with NICE guidance, which recommends a comprehensive assessment for possible GAD that considers distress and functional impairment rather than relying only on the number, severity, and duration of symptoms.
Alternative explanations and differential diagnosis
A GAD diagnosis also requires determining whether another condition better explains the presentation. Anxiety-like symptoms can arise in other anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, obsessive-compulsive and trauma-related conditions, substance- or medication-related states, and medical conditions. Comorbidity is also common, so the question is not always which single label replaces GAD; sometimes more than one condition is present.
For a structured overview, see Anxiety Differential Diagnosis: What Can Look Like an Anxiety Disorder?. When physical symptoms or medical causes are relevant, see Anxiety Symptoms and Medical Differential Diagnosis and Medical Testing in Anxiety Assessment: What It Can and Cannot Show.
A GAD-7 Cutoff Is a Screening Threshold, Not a Diagnostic Boundary
Online explanations often treat 10 as though it were the line separating GAD from no GAD. That is not what a diagnostic cutoff means. A cutoff is a decision threshold used to classify a screening result as positive or negative for a particular purpose. It trades sensitivity against specificity; changing the threshold changes that tradeoff.
In the original GAD-7 study, the selected cutoff had sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 82% for GAD in the study's primary-care context. A 2016 diagnostic meta-analysis of 12 samples found pooled sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.84 at a cutoff of 8, with broadly similar performance across nearby cutoffs from 7 through 10.
A much larger 2025 Cochrane diagnostic-accuracy review included 48 studies with 19,228 participants from 27 countries and 24 languages. At a threshold of 10 or the closest available value, the summary sensitivity for detecting GAD was 0.64 and summary specificity was 0.91. The review found substantial heterogeneity and concluded that GAD-7 and GAD-2 cannot, by themselves, diagnose or rule out an anxiety disorder.
Those estimates are not mutually contradictory. They come from different study collections, populations, settings, languages, reference standards, and analytic approaches. A threshold does not possess one universal sensitivity and specificity that follows every person into every setting.
A 2025 updated systematic review and meta-analysis likewise found overall screening accuracy that varied according to the diagnostic target and participant characteristics. The stable conclusion across the evidence is that the GAD-7 can be useful for case finding, while its performance depends on context and remains imperfect.
Why a Positive GAD-7 Does Not Mean You Have GAD
A positive screen means that the response pattern crossed the threshold chosen for screening. It increases the reason to investigate GAD and other explanations. It does not tell you which explanation will survive a full assessment.
One reason is imperfect specificity. Even a test with high specificity produces false-positive results. Another is that the seven symptoms are not unique to GAD. General nervousness, difficulty relaxing, restlessness, irritability, worry, and fearful anticipation can occur in other anxiety disorders, depression with anxious distress, trauma-related conditions, obsessive-compulsive presentations, acute stress, medication or substance effects, and medical illness.
A high GAD-7 total can therefore be clinically important even when the final diagnosis is not GAD. The score may still be telling the truth about the person's symptom burden; what remains unresolved is the explanation for that burden.
The Cochrane example makes the problem concrete
The Cochrane review illustrated screening in a hypothetical group of 1,000 people where 12% truly had GAD. Using the GAD-7, an estimated 156 people would screen positive, but only about 77 would actually have GAD; roughly 79 would be false positives relative to that diagnosis. At the same time, some people with GAD would screen negative.
The example shows why the meaning of a positive result depends partly on prevalence and setting. A positive screen in a high-risk clinical population does not carry the same post-test probability as the same score in a low-prevalence population. The questionnaire result is one piece of diagnostic evidence, not a verdict.
Why a Negative GAD-7 Does Not Rule Out GAD
A score below a screening threshold lowers concern in the context where that threshold has been studied, but it cannot prove that GAD is absent. Sensitivity is not 100%, and the 2025 Cochrane synthesis found a summary sensitivity of 0.64 for GAD at the commonly recommended threshold of 10 or the nearest available threshold.
False negatives can occur for several reasons. The person may be in a lower-symptom two-week period despite a longer history of GAD. Their clinically important symptoms may not be strongly represented by the seven items. They may sit just below a threshold even though the overall clinical pattern is significant. The scale may also perform differently in the population, language, or setting in which it is being used.
Persistent, hard-to-control worry, functional impairment, or a convincing longitudinal history should therefore lead to appropriate assessment even when a GAD-7 total is below a conventional cutoff. Clinical concern should follow the presentation rather than stop at the number.
The Four Possible GAD-7 and Diagnosis Combinations
A useful way to understand screening is to separate the questionnaire result from the diagnostic result. There are four basic combinations, and all four occur in real practice.
Positive GAD-7 and GAD diagnosis
This is a true-positive screening outcome relative to GAD. The questionnaire flags clinically relevant symptoms, and the subsequent assessment establishes a persistent generalized worry pattern that meets diagnostic requirements after differential diagnosis and contextual review.
Positive GAD-7 without a GAD diagnosis
This is a false positive if the target is specifically GAD, but that phrase does not mean the person's distress is false. They may have another anxiety disorder, another mental disorder with prominent anxiety, a temporary stress response, a medical or substance-related explanation, subthreshold GAD, or clinically meaningful symptoms that do not fit one disorder neatly.
Negative GAD-7 with a GAD diagnosis
This is a false-negative screening outcome. It is possible because the test is imperfect and because the two-week measurement window is shorter than the diagnostic course of GAD. A diagnostic interview can recover information that a brief questionnaire misses.
Negative GAD-7 without a GAD diagnosis
This is a true-negative result relative to GAD. Even then, the result says only that the screen and assessment did not establish GAD in that context. It is not a general certificate of psychological health and does not rule out every other mental or medical condition.
Does the GAD-7 Diagnose Other Anxiety Disorders?
No. The GAD-7 can be elevated in panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, specific phobia, agoraphobia, separation anxiety disorder, and other anxiety presentations, but it does not contain the disorder-specific information required to establish those diagnoses.
The 2007 primary-care validation work found that GAD-7 scores had screening utility beyond GAD, which helped establish the scale as a broader anxiety measure in some contexts. That does not turn the GAD-7 into a universal diagnostic instrument. In the 2025 Cochrane review, accuracy for detecting any anxiety disorder was weaker than for GAD at the commonly recommended threshold.
Each anxiety disorder has its own diagnostic territory. Panic disorder is organized around recurrent unexpected panic attacks and their consequences; social anxiety disorder around social-evaluative fear; specific phobia around a circumscribed fear target; agoraphobia around particular feared situations; separation anxiety disorder around separation from attachment figures; and selective mutism around persistent failure to speak in particular social settings despite speaking elsewhere. A general anxiety score cannot substitute for those distinctions.
GAD-7 Is Not a Test for OCD, PTSD, Illness Anxiety, or Neuroticism
Anxiety is prominent in many conditions that are not classified as generalized anxiety disorder and, in modern diagnostic systems, are not simply subtypes of anxiety disorders. Obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and other trauma-related disorders, illness anxiety disorder, and personality traits such as neuroticism have their own constructs and diagnostic or conceptual boundaries.
An elevated GAD-7 may coexist with any of them. That co-occurrence can be clinically relevant, but the score does not establish which condition is present and should not be used to recategorize neighboring concepts as forms of GAD.
What a Clinician Adds After a GAD-7 Screen
The main difference between screening and diagnosis is not that a clinician simply asks more questions from the same checklist. A diagnostic assessment changes the level of information. It reconstructs the person's symptoms across time, situations, meanings, behavior, functioning, health, substances, medication exposure, and competing psychiatric explanations.
A longitudinal history
The clinician asks when the anxiety began, whether it is continuous or episodic, how it has changed, and whether the generalized worry pattern has persisted long enough. This is essential because the GAD-7 sees only the previous two weeks.
The structure of worry
Assessment examines the domains of worry, whether worry shifts across multiple everyday concerns, how difficult it is to control, and whether it is disproportionate to the situation. This helps separate generalized worry from a narrower fear, obsessional concern, trauma cue, health preoccupation, or another process.
Associated symptoms and functional impact
The clinician evaluates cognitive, emotional, behavioral, sleep-related, and physical symptoms as well as avoidance, reassurance seeking, safety behaviors, work or school performance, relationships, and daily functioning. The diagnostic significance of a symptom depends on how it is organized into the broader syndrome.
Psychiatric differential diagnosis and comorbidity
The assessment considers other anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, obsessive-compulsive and trauma-related disorders, substance-use problems, neurodevelopmental conditions, and other clinically relevant presentations. The purpose is not merely to choose one label but to build an accurate formulation of what is present.
Medical, medication, and substance context
Clinicians review relevant medical history, medication changes, stimulant and other substance exposure, sleep, and physical symptoms. A questionnaire cannot determine whether palpitations, breathlessness, dizziness, weakness, tremor, gastrointestinal symptoms, or other bodily experiences are caused by anxiety.
New, severe, unexplained, or otherwise concerning physical symptoms should be evaluated on their own merits. Chest pain, fainting, severe shortness of breath, new neurologic symptoms, or other acute warning signs should not be labeled anxiety because a GAD-7 score is elevated.
DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 Do Not Reduce GAD to a Questionnaire Score
DSM-5-TR and ICD-11 are classification systems used to define clinical disorders; the GAD-7 is a measurement instrument. They therefore operate at different levels. The questionnaire can contribute evidence about symptom frequency and severity, while the classification systems specify the clinical pattern that must be established.
The WHO ICD-11 Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Requirements were developed to support reliable diagnosis in clinical settings. The APA's DSM-5-TR assessment-measures page similarly frames patient-reported measures as aids to initial evaluation and treatment monitoring, explicitly stating that such measures should not be the sole basis for a clinical diagnosis.
This is why it is inaccurate to say that a GAD-7 score 'meets DSM criteria' or 'confirms ICD-11 GAD.' The scale and the diagnostic systems overlap in content, but they are not interchangeable.
How to Interpret a Score of 10 Without Turning It Into a Diagnosis
A GAD-7 score of 10 is commonly used as a positive screening threshold and begins the conventional moderate symptom range. The correct interpretation is that the person's recent responses reached a level often used to trigger closer assessment. The score does not mean 'you have GAD,' and it does not mean there is a 10-out-of-21 degree of disease.
If the intent is numeric interpretation—what 0–4, 5–9, 10–14, and 15–21 conventionally represent, why threshold estimates differ, and how repeated totals can be understood—see GAD-7 Score: What the Results Mean and What They Do Not Diagnose. Keeping score interpretation separate from diagnostic interpretation prevents a common form of online overreach.
Can GAD-7 Severity Equal GAD Severity?
Not exactly. A GAD-7 total is a validated measure of symptom severity on the instrument. Clinical disorder severity also involves functional impairment, persistence, complexity, comorbidity, risk, and the person's broader circumstances. A higher score often correlates with greater impairment at the group level, but two people with the same total can have different diagnostic pictures and very different levels of functional disruption.
The distinction is especially important in treatment monitoring. A falling GAD-7 can be evidence that covered symptoms are improving, while a rising score can flag worsening symptoms. Neither change explains why the change occurred, and neither should automatically dictate medication changes, treatment escalation, or discharge.
Population and Setting Change Screening Performance
Diagnostic accuracy is not a property of a questionnaire in isolation. It emerges from the instrument, threshold, population, setting, language, reference standard, and prevalence of the target condition. That is why estimates from one study should not be copied mechanically into every clinic or online self-test.
The 2025 Cochrane review found marked heterogeneity across studies and noted that performance could deviate substantially from summary averages in specific situations. A heterogeneous psychiatric-sample study also found that the GAD-7 worked well as a measure of anxiety symptom severity while showing poor specificity and a high false-positive rate for anxiety diagnoses in that setting.
The practical consequence is simple: the same numerical result can carry different diagnostic weight in a primary-care screening program, a specialty psychiatric clinic, a general-population survey, a perinatal service, a medical specialty population, or an adolescent setting. Validation evidence should match the population and purpose as closely as possible.
What About Online GAD-7 Tests and Self-Screening?
Completing the GAD-7 online can be a useful way to organize your recent symptoms before a clinical conversation, provided the version is accurate and the two-week reference period is preserved. The result is best treated as a prompt for reflection or follow-up rather than a self-issued diagnosis.
A high score can justify discussing anxiety with a qualified clinician, especially when symptoms are persistent, worsening, distressing, or impairing. A low score should not prevent someone from seeking assessment when the history remains concerning. The USPSTF screening recommendation emphasizes that the pathway to benefit depends on further diagnostic evaluation after a positive result and access to evidence-based care.
The GAD-7 also contains no item that directly assesses suicidal thoughts or self-harm. A low anxiety score therefore cannot establish safety. Immediate risk of self-harm, inability to stay safe, or another acute psychiatric emergency requires urgent local crisis or emergency care rather than interpretation through a GAD-7 total.
When a GAD-7 Result Should Lead to More Assessment
Further assessment is reasonable when the score is elevated, but the number is not the only reason. Persistent uncontrollable worry, marked avoidance, sleep disruption, concentration problems, muscle tension, fatigue, irritability, significant distress, declining work or school performance, relationship strain, or recurrent health-care use for unexplained anxiety-like symptoms can all make a broader assessment appropriate.
Assessment is also appropriate when symptoms have changed abruptly, began after a medication or substance change, occur with significant physical symptoms, or appear alongside depression, trauma symptoms, obsessions or compulsions, panic attacks, disordered eating, substance use, mania-like symptoms, psychotic symptoms, or other clinically significant changes.
The goal is not to maximize diagnosis. It is to identify the most accurate explanation for the person's difficulties and to determine whether treatment, monitoring, medical evaluation, or another form of support is indicated.
What a GAD-7 Result Should Not Decide by Itself
A GAD-7 total should not, by itself, decide whether someone has GAD, whether another anxiety disorder is present, whether symptoms are psychiatric rather than medical, whether medication is indicated, which medication to use, whether psychotherapy is necessary, whether a treatment is failing, whether someone is safe, or whether care can end.
Those decisions require information that the questionnaire does not contain. For the clinical entity itself—including symptoms, causes, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and treatment evidence—see Generalized Anxiety Disorder: Symptoms, Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment.
Evidence Summary: What Is Established and What Remains Context-Dependent
Established evidence
The GAD-7 is a well-studied brief self-report scale for anxiety symptom severity and screening. Its original validation linked higher scores with greater functional impairment, and subsequent studies have supported its reliability and validity in many populations. Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses support useful diagnostic-accuracy properties for identifying possible GAD.
It is also established that the scale is not perfectly sensitive or specific. Positive and negative screens can be wrong relative to a diagnostic reference standard. Current professional guidance therefore treats screening as a step that can lead to diagnostic evaluation rather than as a substitute for that evaluation.
Context-dependent evidence
The best cutoff, sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and practical interpretation vary across populations and settings. Evidence from primary care cannot automatically be transferred to every specialty population, age group, culture, language version, or clinical context. Thresholds should be used for the purpose and population for which they have adequate validation.
What remains a clinical judgment
No meta-analysis can infer an individual person's diagnosis from a score alone. The final diagnostic interpretation depends on history, impairment, symptom organization, developmental and cultural context, medical and substance factors, comorbidity, and the clinician's evaluation of competing explanations.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a high GAD-7 score mean I have generalized anxiety disorder?
No. It means you reported a higher frequency of the symptoms measured by the GAD-7 during the previous two weeks. The result can support screening and severity measurement, but GAD requires a broader clinical assessment.
Is a GAD-7 score of 10 a diagnosis of GAD?
No. Ten is a commonly used screening threshold and the start of the conventional moderate symptom range. It is not a diagnostic boundary. Studies report different accuracy estimates at the same or nearby thresholds.
Can I have GAD if my GAD-7 score is below 10?
Yes. Screening tools have false negatives, and a two-week score can miss a longer-term pattern. Persistent, difficult-to-control worry and impairment can justify assessment regardless of whether a score crosses 10.
Can I score above 10 and not have GAD?
Yes. Other anxiety disorders, depression, trauma-related or obsessive-compulsive presentations, acute stress, medical conditions, medications, substances, or subthreshold symptoms can produce an elevated total. The distress can be real even when GAD is not the final diagnosis.
Can the GAD-7 tell which anxiety disorder I have?
No. It does not contain enough disorder-specific information to distinguish GAD from panic disorder, social anxiety disorder, specific phobia, agoraphobia, separation anxiety disorder, or selective mutism.
Can a GAD-7 score rule out a medical cause of anxiety symptoms?
No. A questionnaire cannot determine whether symptoms are caused by anxiety, a medical condition, a medication, a substance, or a combination of factors.
Does the GAD-7 measure how severe my diagnosed GAD is?
It measures symptom severity on the GAD-7 and can be useful for monitoring. Clinical severity also includes impairment, persistence, comorbidity, risk, and broader functioning, so the score is one part of the picture.
Should a positive GAD-7 automatically lead to treatment?
No. A positive screen should lead to appropriate evaluation. Treatment decisions depend on the diagnosis, severity, impairment, preferences, medical context, prior treatment, risks, and available evidence.
How often should the GAD-7 be repeated?
There is no universal repeat interval. The USPSTF notes limited evidence on optimal screening intervals. In treatment monitoring, timing should match the clinical plan and preserve a comparable two-week reference period.
Is the GAD-7 the same as a diagnostic interview?
No. The GAD-7 is a standardized self-report questionnaire. A diagnostic interview gathers a broader history, tests the required clinical pattern over time, evaluates impairment and exclusions, and considers differential diagnoses and comorbidity.
Related Articles
References
Aktürk Z, Hapfelmeier A, Fomenko A, et al. Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7) and 2-item (GAD-2) scales for detecting anxiety disorders in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2025;3:CD015455. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD015455
American Psychiatric Association. DSM-5-TR Online Assessment Measures. Official assessment-measures resource.
Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW, Monahan PO, Löwe B. Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2007;146(5):317–325. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004
Löwe B, Decker O, Müller S, et al. Validation and standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population. Medical Care. 2008;46(3):266–274. PubMed.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Generalised anxiety disorder and panic disorder in adults: management. Clinical guideline CG113. Recommendations.
National Institute of Mental Health. Generalized Anxiety Disorder: What You Need to Know. NIMH.
Park SH, Park H. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of the predictive validity of the General Anxiety Disorder (GAD)-7 and GAD-2 in screening for anxiety disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2025. PubMed.
Plummer F, Manea L, Trepel D, McMillan D. Screening for anxiety disorders with the GAD-7 and GAD-2: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis. General Hospital Psychiatry. 2016;39:24–31. PubMed.
Rutter LA, Brown TA. Psychometric Properties of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7 (GAD-7) in Outpatients with Anxiety and Mood Disorders. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. 2017;39(1):140–146. doi:10.1007/s10862-016-9571-9
Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JBW, Löwe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2006;166(10):1092–1097. doi:10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Anxiety Disorders in Adults: Screening. Final Recommendation Statement. June 20, 2023. USPSTF.
World Health Organization. Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders (CDDR). 2024. WHO.