Abstract
BackgroundThe 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsCFA 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.ConclusionsIt is concluded that the Brazilian version of the K10 is a suitable measure of psychological distress for the Brazilian population.
Highlights
Developed in 2001 for Australia’s National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001; Kessler et al, 2002; Pereira et al, 2019), the Kessler Distress Scale (K10) is a self-report scale for the assessment of non-specific psychological distress in the general and clinical population
The bifactor model, consisting of two specific factors and one general factor showed significantly better goodness-of-fit indices compared to the other models, being the only one with results classified as good
The primary objective of this study was the adaptation of the K10 to Brazilian Portuguese, as well as the estimation of different types of validity evidence and reliability (American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and National Council of Measurement in Education [NCME], 2014)
Summary
Developed in 2001 for Australia’s National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001; Kessler et al, 2002; Pereira et al, 2019), the Kessler Distress Scale (K10) is a self-report scale for the assessment of non-specific psychological distress in the general and clinical population. Psychological distress can be defined as non-specific psychological suffering despite sometimes being referred to and assessed as synonymous with depression, anxiety, or other psychological symptoms (Decat et al, 2009). It has been assessed by different instruments, the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21). (Goldberg & Williams, 1988; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995a, 1995b; Pais-Ribeiro et al, 2004) being worthy of note As it is a brief scale and easy to apply and to correct, the K10 has been used in psychopathological screening studies for anxiety and mood disorders. The present study seeks to adapt the K10 to Brazilian Portuguese and estimate its validity evidence and reliability
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
