{"title":"一项评估短期Kessler心理困扰量表(K6)有效性和心理指标的全国性研究","authors":"Emre Umucu, Karen Fortuna, Hyejin Jung, Anita Bialunska, Beatrice Lee, Thenral Mangadu, Marianne Storm, Gul Ergun, Donyeill A Mozer, Jessica Brooks","doi":"10.1177/00343552211043261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to test the validity and reliability of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale-6 (K6) with a nationally representative clinical sample with various mental health disorders. The cross-sectional, nationally representative, and publicly available data were extracted from the 2014 Health Center Patient Survey (HCPS), which was sponsored by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). After excluding certain individuals for the purpose of this study, we had a total of 1,863 participants. The highest and lowest psychological distress weighted scores were reported by individuals with bipolar disorder (<i>M</i> = 17.16) and individuals with schizophrenia (<i>M</i> = 16.09), respectively, although psychological distress interference was highest in individuals with schizophrenia (<i>M</i> = 2.44). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results yielded a unidimensional factor solution for K6 scale in all subgroups. The K6 is a brief, reliable, and valid measure of psychological distress in adults with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.</p>","PeriodicalId":47012,"journal":{"name":"Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11412066/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A National Study to Assess Validity and Psychometrics of the Short Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6).\",\"authors\":\"Emre Umucu, Karen Fortuna, Hyejin Jung, Anita Bialunska, Beatrice Lee, Thenral Mangadu, Marianne Storm, Gul Ergun, Donyeill A Mozer, Jessica Brooks\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00343552211043261\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study aimed to test the validity and reliability of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale-6 (K6) with a nationally representative clinical sample with various mental health disorders. The cross-sectional, nationally representative, and publicly available data were extracted from the 2014 Health Center Patient Survey (HCPS), which was sponsored by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). After excluding certain individuals for the purpose of this study, we had a total of 1,863 participants. The highest and lowest psychological distress weighted scores were reported by individuals with bipolar disorder (<i>M</i> = 17.16) and individuals with schizophrenia (<i>M</i> = 16.09), respectively, although psychological distress interference was highest in individuals with schizophrenia (<i>M</i> = 2.44). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results yielded a unidimensional factor solution for K6 scale in all subgroups. The K6 is a brief, reliable, and valid measure of psychological distress in adults with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11412066/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00343552211043261\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/9/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00343552211043261","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
A National Study to Assess Validity and Psychometrics of the Short Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6).
This study aimed to test the validity and reliability of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale-6 (K6) with a nationally representative clinical sample with various mental health disorders. The cross-sectional, nationally representative, and publicly available data were extracted from the 2014 Health Center Patient Survey (HCPS), which was sponsored by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). After excluding certain individuals for the purpose of this study, we had a total of 1,863 participants. The highest and lowest psychological distress weighted scores were reported by individuals with bipolar disorder (M = 17.16) and individuals with schizophrenia (M = 16.09), respectively, although psychological distress interference was highest in individuals with schizophrenia (M = 2.44). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results yielded a unidimensional factor solution for K6 scale in all subgroups. The K6 is a brief, reliable, and valid measure of psychological distress in adults with panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.
期刊介绍:
Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin (RCB) publishes articles on rehabilitation counseling with a major emphasis on data-based research reports, although other types of contributions to professional knowledge in rehabilitation counseling will be considered. Examples include articles that explain an innovative technique or application, point/ counterpoint debates on a current controversy challenging the profession, or insightful essays on an important issue. Contributions of these kinds may be considered for a special section of RCB. Article topics cover a wide range—from ethical dilemmas related to counseling clients with HIV/AIDS to clinical problem solving in micro–case management.