4.1 Article

The temporal stability of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale

期刊

AUSTRALIAN PSYCHOLOGIST
卷 56, 期 1, 页码 38-45

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00050067.2021.1893603

关键词

Assessment; Kessler-10; K10; mental Illness; psychological distress; test-retest reliability

资金

  1. MRFF Career Development Fellowship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aimed to validate the temporal stability of the K10 over various time periods, and found that it demonstrated sound test-retest reliability in both treatment-seeking and non-treatment-seeking samples. The results support the continued implementation of the K10 as an outcome measure in mental health research and treatment.
Objective: The ten-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) was designed as a screening tool to identify mental illness in epidemiological surveys. In recent years, it has also been employed in treatment studies and clinical settings to measure changes in psychological distress. However, no study to date has validated this extended use of the K10 by examining its temporal stability. This was the aim of the current study. Method: The K10 was administered on two occasions to a treatment-seeking sample (n = 289) and a non-treatment seeking sample (n = 129). To investigate the K10's temporal stability over a range of clinically relevant time periods, test-retest reliability estimates were computed for multiple time intervals from 1-2 weeks to 8-13 weeks in the treatment-seeking sample. Results: For the testing interval of 1-2 weeks, the K10 demonstrated sound test-retest reliability in the treatment-seeking sample (ICC = .89; r = .80) and in the non-treatment-seeking sample (ICC = .86; r = .76). Comparable estimates were observed for the longer testing intervals in the treatment-seeking sample (ICCs = .84-.90; rs = .72-.81). Conclusion: This study provides evidence demonstrating the temporal stability of the K10, and supports its continued implementation as an outcome measure in mental health research and treatment.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据