Makayla-May Brinckley1, Bianca Calabria2, Jennie Walker2, Katherine A Thurber2, Raymond Lovett2. 1. National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, 54 Mills Road, Acton, ACT, 2601, Australia. Makayla-May.Brinckley@anu.edu.au. 2. National Centre for Epidemiology & Population Health, Research School of Population Health, Australian National University, 54 Mills Road, Acton, ACT, 2601, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the first people of Australia. Consequences of historic and contemporary settler-colonialism including racism, trauma, grief and loss (of land, culture, spirituality, and freedoms) have led to substantial negative health and wellbeing impacts. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scales are population and individual-level tools designed to measure general psychological health status. There has been limited assessment of the psychometric properties and validity of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale for use with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population in Australia, despite its widespread use. METHODS: A national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults (n = 6988 ≥ 16 years) was used in the psychometric assessment of the MK-K5, which involved face validity, acceptability, internal consistency/reliability, construct validity, and convergent and divergent validity testing. Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) curves were produced to assess clinical utility for depression and anxiety screening. RESULTS: The MK-K5 demonstrated face validity for psychological distress in two focus groups, and had good acceptability, good internal consistency/reliability (α = 0.89), good construct validity (uni-dimensional; one underlying component explaining 70.1% of variance), and demonstrated convergent and divergent validity in the sample. The MK-K5 had good clinical utility at a cut-off score of 11 for detecting ever being diagnosed with depression or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: The MK-K5 is a valid measure of psychological distress and has clinical utility in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population.
BACKGROUND: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are the first people of Australia. Consequences of historic and contemporary settler-colonialism including racism, trauma, grief and loss (of land, culture, spirituality, and freedoms) have led to substantial negative health and wellbeing impacts. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scales are population and individual-level tools designed to measure general psychological health status. There has been limited assessment of the psychometric properties and validity of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale for use with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population in Australia, despite its widespread use. METHODS: A national sample of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adults (n = 6988 ≥ 16 years) was used in the psychometric assessment of the MK-K5, which involved face validity, acceptability, internal consistency/reliability, construct validity, and convergent and divergent validity testing. Receiver Operator Characteristics (ROC) curves were produced to assess clinical utility for depression and anxiety screening. RESULTS: The MK-K5 demonstrated face validity for psychological distress in two focus groups, and had good acceptability, good internal consistency/reliability (α = 0.89), good construct validity (uni-dimensional; one underlying component explaining 70.1% of variance), and demonstrated convergent and divergent validity in the sample. The MK-K5 had good clinical utility at a cut-off score of 11 for detecting ever being diagnosed with depression or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: The MK-K5 is a valid measure of psychological distress and has clinical utility in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population.
Authors: Chris Clarkson; Zenobia Jacobs; Ben Marwick; Richard Fullagar; Lynley Wallis; Mike Smith; Richard G Roberts; Elspeth Hayes; Kelsey Lowe; Xavier Carah; S Anna Florin; Jessica McNeil; Delyth Cox; Lee J Arnold; Quan Hua; Jillian Huntley; Helen E A Brand; Tiina Manne; Andrew Fairbairn; James Shulmeister; Lindsey Lyle; Makiah Salinas; Mara Page; Kate Connell; Gayoung Park; Kasih Norman; Tessa Murphy; Colin Pardoe Journal: Nature Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: R C Kessler; G Andrews; L J Colpe; E Hiripi; D K Mroczek; S L T Normand; E E Walters; A M Zaslavsky Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Bridgette J McNamara; Emily Banks; Lina Gubhaju; Anna Williamson; Grace Joshy; Beverley Raphael; Sandra J Eades Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2014-10-12 Impact factor: 2.939
Authors: Kathryn Meldrum; Ellaina Andersson; Valda Wallace; Torres Webb; Rachel Quigley; Edward Strivens; Sarah Russell Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-08-16 Impact factor: 3.006