The performance of the K6 Scale in a large school sample.

Abstract

Timely prevalence data of psychiatric morbidity among adolescents in small areas remains vital for mental health policy planning at the regional and local levels. Furthermore, effective regional policy planning also requires the measurement of psychiatric morbidity using clinically validated instruments. The K6 scale was therefore included on the 2012 administration of the Kentucky Incentives for Prevention Survey as a measure of serious emotional disturbance in the past 30 days. Principal axis and confirmatory factor analyses were performed to determine the unidimensional structure of the K6 in a school-based sample of Kentucky students (n = 108,736). The documented cutoff of 13 on the K6 was then used to screen Kentucky students for serious emotional disturbance, estimate the state prevalence, and define epidemiologic correlates. Overall, the K6 performed well, with factor analyses confirming the 1-factor solution of the K6. Based upon the established cutoff, the prevalence of serious emotional disturbance was 13.9% in Kentucky. Grade, gender, race and ethnicity, and family structure emerged as significant predictors in a multivariable logistic regression model. Substance abuse, antisocial behavior, role impairments, and peer victimization were significantly higher among students with a positive screen. These results indicate the K6 is particularly useful for inclusion in large epidemiologic surveys that have limited space and logistics that demand timely administration.

Psychometric properties of the Bangla version of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6)

“…was some evidence of a possible second factor demonstrated by high eigenvalues, similar to what has been reported in U.S. and Australian adolescents (Mewton et al, 2016, Peiper et al, 2015. In contrast to a single factor solution, some earlier research has identified a two-factor structure in K6 (depression and anxiety) (Easton et al, 2017;Bessaha, 2017;Lee et al, 2012).…”

The relationship between psychological distress and adolescent polydrug use.

“…The internal reliability of the K10 for the present data set was excellent (Cronbach's  = 0.90). While a small number of studies advocate for K10 subscales for depression and anxiety (e.g., Brooks, Beard, & Steel, 2006), more recent population research indicates no empirical basis for a 2-factor structure (Peiper, Clayton, Wilson, & Illback, 2014;Sunderland, Mahoney, & Andrews, 2012). For descriptive purposes, cutoff scores for psychological distress were defined as low risk (sum score of 10-15), medium risk (16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) and high risk (30-50) (Furukawa, Kessler, Slade, & Andrews, 2003).…”

Latent class analysis of need descriptors within an Irish youth mental health early intervention program toward a typology of need

“…Our results, however, are consistent with findings from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication Adolescent Supplement (NCS-A) and other large population-based studies of adolescents. 11,12,14,19 Second, the sample size was modest, potentially leading to a Type II error. In particular, the extremely wide CI for lack of adult support suggests that future studies should utilize a larger analytic sample to derive more precise estimates.…”

“…The significant findings for age, gender and living situation are broadly consistent with documented demographic differences in mental health. 10,19,20 Third, despite the distinct differences in presenting issues seen between classes, these groups do not represent diagnostic categories, nor does Jigsaw utilize clinical diagnoses to determine appropriate intervention planning. Whereas these factors may limit the ability to make clinical inferences with respect to specific disorders, the significant overlap between disorders suggests their classification as distinct disorders may not be theoretically or empirically meaningful.…”