Investigating the factor structure of the K10 and identifying cutoff scores denoting nonspecific psychological distress and need for treatment

Lace, John W.; Greif, Taylor R.; McGrath, Andrew; Grant, Alex F.; Merz, Zachary C.; Teague, Carson L.; Handal, Paul J.

doi:10.1016/j.mhp.2019.01.008

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In April 2020, 13.6% of US adults reported symptoms of serious psychological distress relative to 3.9% in (McGinty et al 2020. Scores measuring psychological distress in April 2020 were indicative of mild mental illness (French, Mortensen, and Timming 2020) -similar to scores of those who have previously received mental health counselling or treatment (Lace et al 2019). To date, research on mental and physical health of US residents during the early onset of the pandemic has been cross-sectional, lacking insight into the longitudinal impact of COVID-19 on stressors related to overall health status.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Changes in self-reported health, alcohol consumption, and sleep quality during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

French

Mortensen

Timming

2020

Applied Economics Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Changes in self-reported health, alcohol consumption, and sleep quality during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

French

Mortensen

Timming

2020

Applied Economics Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…An additional measure included in the present study is the K10 (Kessler et al, 2002;. This is because the K10 has been, and continues to be, one of the most popular psychological distress measures in the literature (Some examples: Every-Palmer et al, 2020;Furukawa et al, 2003;Joshy et al, 2020;Lace et al, 2019;Nagel et al, 2020;Slade et al, 2011). In our study, we expected the K10 to be strongly positively associated with the DASS-21, and strongly negatively associated with the BEES balanced score.…”

Section: Dass-21 and K10mentioning

confidence: 90%

Reliability and validity of the Brief Emotional Experience Scale (BEES) for mood monitoring

Rogers¹,

Cruickshank²,

Kk³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Brief Emotional Experience Scale (BEES) has been used in several studies, however its reliability and validity are yet to be investigated. This study evaluated the reliability and validity of the BEES across three independent studies. In studies 1 and 2, convergent validity was established between the BEES with existing emotional well-being instruments - The Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE), the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21), and the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10/K6). Confirmatory factor analysis of the BEES reveals it confirms to the same two-factor structure as the SPANE that includes positive and negative emotion. Study 3 provides an example of the utility of the BEES for monitoring temporal changes in mood. BEES scores fluctuated depending on self-reported positive and negative events during the week. Additionally, mood variability as determined by the standard deviation of BEES scores, was negatively associated with mean levels of emotion.

show abstract

“…It is valid and reliable in psychiatric populations 24 and is commonly used in population‐based surveys to screen for depression and anxiety 25 . Scores range from 10 (indicating minimal distress) to 50 (indicating severe distress) and a score of >22 indicates the need for further psychological review 25,26 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Linear regression analysis, using PCS clinical cutoffs, provided more detail of this relationship between catastrophizing and POP bother. A PCS clinical score of mild (<20) had a predicted mean VAS-B score of 5.645 ± 0.30, CI: 5.045-6.246, a score of moderate (20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) 8.838 ± 0.41, CI: 8.030-9.646 (Table 4). Compared to mild PCS scores, both moderate and severe clinical PCS scores were associated with significantly higher mean VAS-B scores (p < 0.001).…”

Section: Relationship Between Catastrophizing and Pop Bothermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…25 Scores range from 10 (indicating minimal distress) to 50 (indicating severe distress) and a score of >22 indicates the need for further psychological review. 25,26 Women were required to fill out the modified pain selfefficacy questionnaire (mPSEQ) and modified pain catastrophizing scale (mPCS). With no validated measures for self-efficacy or catastrophizing in the POP population, the pain self-efficacy questionnaire (PSEQ) 27,28 and pain catastrophizing scale (PCS) 20 were adapted to form the mPSEQ and mPCS.…”

Section: Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The relationship between symptom severity, bother and psychological factors in women with pelvic organ prolapse: A cross‐sectional observational study

Drage

Aghera

MacKellar

et al. 2021

Neurourology and Urodynamics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The primary aim is to explore the relationship between symptom severity and prolapse bother in women with pelvic organ prolapse (POP). The secondary aim is to determine the association between psychological variables and prolapse bother. Methods: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted via online surveys assessing POP bother (visual analog scale for bother), POP symptom severity (International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Vaginal Symptoms), and psychological measures of depression and anxiety (Kessler psychological distress scale [K-10]), catastrophizing (modified pain catastrophizing scale [mPCS]), and self-efficacy (modified pain self-efficacy questionnaire [mPSEQ]) in women with self-reported POP. Symptom severity, bother and psychological variables were analyzed using linear regression.Results: Seventy-six women with a mean (SD) age of 42.8 (14.57) years were included in analysis. A moderate to strong positive linear relationship (R 2 = 0.449, p < 0.001) was found between symptom severity and POP bother.Prolapse bother and psychological variables were moderately correlated, where increased K-10 scores (R 2 = 0.230, p = 0.001), higher mPCS scores (R 2 = 0.460, p < 0.001), and lower mPSEQ scores (R 2 = 0.460, p < 0.001) were associated with increased POP bother. Moderate and severe catastrophizing was associated with significantly higher POP bother, with mean POP bother scores of 7.861 ± 0.45 (p < 0.001) and 8.652 ± 0.45 (p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion: A moderate positive relationship between POP bother and symptom severity was found, with greater psychological distress and lower self-efficacy associated with increasing POP bother. Women presenting with POP should be screened for psychological factors to guide management.

show abstract

Investigating the factor structure of the K10 and identifying cutoff scores denoting nonspecific psychological distress and need for treatment

Cited by 24 publications

References 59 publications

Changes in self-reported health, alcohol consumption, and sleep quality during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

Changes in self-reported health, alcohol consumption, and sleep quality during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States

Reliability and validity of the Brief Emotional Experience Scale (BEES) for mood monitoring

The relationship between symptom severity, bother and psychological factors in women with pelvic organ prolapse: A cross‐sectional observational study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About