Evandro Morais Peixoto1, Daniela Sacramento Zanini2, Josemberg Moura de Andrade3. 1. University of São Francisco USF, 105 Waldemar César da Silveira St, Jardim Cura D'ars, Campinas, SP, 13045-510, Brazil. peixotoem@gmail.com. 2. Pontifical Catholic University of Goiás PUC-Goiáis, Praça universitária s/n, av. Universitária, Goiânia, GO, 74605-220, Brazil. 3. University of Brasília UNB, Campus Universitário Darcy Ribeiro, ICC Sul, Asa Norte, Brasília, DF, 70910-900, Brazil.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Kessler Distress Scale (K10) is a self-report scale for the assessment of non-specific psychological distress in the general and clinical population. Because of its ease of application and good psychometric properties, the K10 has been adapted to several cultures. The present study seeks to adapt the K10 to Brazilian Portuguese and estimate its validity evidence and reliability. METHODS: A total of 1914 individuals from the general population participated in the study (age = 34.88, SD = 13.61, 77.7% female). The adjustment indices were compared among three different measurement models proposed for the K10 through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The items' properties were analyzed by Andrich's Rating Scale Model (RSM). Furthermore, evidence based on relations to other variables (depression, stress, anxiety, positive and negative affects, and satisfaction with life) was estimated. RESULTS: CFA indicated the adequacy of the bifactor model (CFI= 0.985; TLI= 0.973; SMR= 0.019; RMSEA= 0.050), composed of two specific factors (depression and anxiety) and one general factor (psychological distress), corresponding to the theoretical hypothesis. Additionally, it was observed multiple-group invariance by gender and age range. The RSM provided an understanding of the organization of the continuum represented by the psychological distress construct (items difficulty), which varied from -0.89 to 1.00; good adjustment indexes; infit between 0.67 and 1.32; outfit between 0.68 and 1.34; and desirable reliability, α= 0.87. Lastly, theoretically coherent associations with the external variables were observed. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the Brazilian version of the K10 is a suitable measure of psychological distress for the Brazilian population.
BACKGROUND: The Kessler Distress Scale (K10) is a self-report scale for the assessment of non-specific psychological distress in the general and clinical population. Because of its ease of application and good psychometric properties, the K10 has been adapted to several cultures. The present study seeks to adapt the K10 to Brazilian Portuguese and estimate its validity evidence and reliability. METHODS: A total of 1914 individuals from the general population participated in the study (age = 34.88, SD = 13.61, 77.7% female). The adjustment indices were compared among three different measurement models proposed for the K10 through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The items' properties were analyzed by Andrich's Rating Scale Model (RSM). Furthermore, evidence based on relations to other variables (depression, stress, anxiety, positive and negative affects, and satisfaction with life) was estimated. RESULTS:CFA indicated the adequacy of the bifactor model (CFI= 0.985; TLI= 0.973; SMR= 0.019; RMSEA= 0.050), composed of two specific factors (depression and anxiety) and one general factor (psychological distress), corresponding to the theoretical hypothesis. Additionally, it was observed multiple-group invariance by gender and age range. The RSM provided an understanding of the organization of the continuum represented by the psychological distress construct (items difficulty), which varied from -0.89 to 1.00; good adjustment indexes; infit between 0.67 and 1.32; outfit between 0.68 and 1.34; and desirable reliability, α= 0.87. Lastly, theoretically coherent associations with the external variables were observed. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the Brazilian version of the K10 is a suitable measure of psychological distress for the Brazilian population.
Authors: T Fassaert; M A S De Wit; W C Tuinebreijer; H Wouters; A P Verhoeff; A T F Beekman; J Dekker Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.035
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: Kun-Chia Chang; Carol Strong; Amir H Pakpour; Mark D Griffiths; Chung-Ying Lin Journal: J Formos Med Assoc Date: 2020-07-29 Impact factor: 3.282