Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating the Factor Structure of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale in Community and Clinical Samples of the Australian Population

  • Published:
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 02 October 2013

Abstract

The Kessler 10 Psychological Distress Scale (K10) is a brief dimensional scale designed to measure and monitor trends of psychological distress. Recently the scale has been utilised by general practitioners and clinicians to screen for common mental disorders and measure treatment outcomes. Despite the K10 demonstrating a sound one dimensional structure in the general population, the scale’s structure has yet to be comprehensively tested in clinical samples. The current study aimed to use confirmatory factor analysis to test three theoretical structure models of the K10 and one model for the K6 (a six item variant) in a sample from a tertiary referral clinic for mood and anxiety disorders and compare those results with a population sample from the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. The results demonstrated that a two factor model with correlated latent factors representing depression and anxiety fit the clinical sample the best whilst a one factor model with correlated errors between several items fit the population sample the best. The results are discussed further in relation to scoring and interpreting the Kessler scales.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andrews, G., & Peters, L. (1998). The psychometric properties of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 33(2), 80–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, G., & Slade, T. (2001). Interpreting scores on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25, 494–497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, G., Henderson, S., & Hall, W. (2001). Prevalence, comorbidity, disability and service utilisation: Overview of the Australian National Mental Health Survey. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 178(2), 145–153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Quantitative Methods in Psychology, 107(2), 238–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berle, D., Starcevic, V., Milicevic, D., Moses, K., Hannan, A., Sammut, P., & Brakoulias, V. (2010). The factor structure of the Kessler-10 questionnaire in a treatment-seeking sample. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198, 660–664.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, R. T., Beard, J., & Steel, Z. (2006). Factor structure and interpretation of the K10. Psychological Assessment, 18, 62–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., MacCallum, R. C., Kim, C. T., Anderson, B. L., & Glaser, R. (2002). When fit indices and the residuals are incompatible. Psychological Methods, 7, 403–421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Donker, T., Comijs, H., Cuijpers, P., Terluin, B., Nolen, W., Zitman, F., & Penninx, B. (2010). The validity of the Dutch K10 and extended K10 screening scales for depressive and anxiety disorders. Psychiatric Research, 176, 45–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fassaert, T., De Wit, M. A. S., Tuinebreijer, W. C., Wouters, H., Verhoeff, A. P., Beekman, A. T. F., & Dekker, J. (2009). Psychometric properties of an interviewer-administered version of the Kessler Psychological Distress scale (K10) among Dutch, Moroccan and Turkish respondents. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 18(3), 159–168.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Furukawa, T. A., Kessler, R. C., Slade, T., & Andrews, G. (2003). The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-being. Psychological Medicine, 33, 357–362.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Furukawa, T. A., Kawakami, N., Saitoh, M., Ono, Y., Nakane, Y., Nakamura, Y., et al. (2008). The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 17(3), 152–158.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, D. P., Krueger, R. F., Andrews, G., & Hobbs, M. J. (2009). Emotional disorders: Cluster 4 of the proposed meta-structure for DSM-V and ICD-11. Psychological Medicine, 39(12), 2043–2059.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hickie, I., Andrews, G., & Davenport, T. (2002). Measuring outcomes in patients with depression or anxiety: And essential part of clinical practice. Medical Journal of Australia, 177, 205–207.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, R. C., & Ustun, T. B. (2004). The World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 93–121.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, R. C., McGonagle, K. A., Zhao, S., Nelson, C. B., Hughes, M., Eshleman, S., Wittchen, H.-U., & Kendler, K. S. (1994). Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-II psychiatric disorders in the United States: Results from the National Comorbidity Survey. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 8–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, R. C., Andrews, G., Colpe, L. J., Hiripi, E., Mroczek, D. K., Normand, S.-L. T., Walters, E. E., & Zaslavsky, A. M. (2002). Short screening scales to monitor population prevalence and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, 959–976.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, R. C., Abelson, J., Demler, O., Escobar, J. I., Gibbon, M., Guyer, M. E., et al. (2004). Clinical calibration of DSM-IV diagnoses in the World Mental Health (WMH) version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WMH-CIDI). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 122–139.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, R. C., Green, J. G., Gruber, M. J., Sampson, N. A., Bromet, E., Cuitan, M., et al. (2010). Screening for serious mental illness in the general population with the K6 screening scale: Results from the WHO World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 19(S1), 4–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49(1), 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthen & Muthen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perini, S. J., Slade, T., & Andrews, G. (2006). Generic effectiveness measure: Sensitivity to change in anxiety disorders. Journal of Affective Disorders, 90, 123–130.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, L., & Andrews, G. (1995). Procedural validity of the computerized version of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-Auto) in the anxiety disorder. Psychological Medicine, 25(6), 1269–1280.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, L., Clark, D., & Carroll, F. (1998). Are computerized interviews equivalent to human interviewers? CIDI-auto versus CIDI in anxiety and depressive disorders. Psychological Medicine, 28(4), 893–901.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slade, T., Johnston, A., Oakley Browne, M. A., Andrews, G., & Whiteford, H. (2009). 2007 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing: Methods and key findings. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 43(7), 594–605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Slade, T., Grove, R., & Burgess, P. (2011). Kessler psychological distress scale: Normative data from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 45(4), 308–316.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25(2), 173–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Titov, N., Andrews, G., Choi, I., Schwencke, G., & Mahoney, A. (2008). Shyness 3: Treating social phobia online: Therapist-guided versus no-therapist. A randomized controlled trial. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 42(12), 1030–1040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittchen, H. U., Üstün, T. B., & Kessler, R. C. (1999). Diagnosing mental disorders in the community. A difference that matters? Psychological Medicine, 29(5), 1021–1027.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a NHMRC Capacity Building Grant ID 568940. The funding source had no role in the study design, analysis, interpretation, and writing of this manuscript. The authors report no conflict of interest

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety and Depression (CRUfAD), Level 4, O’Brien Centre, St Vincent’s Hospital, 394-404 Victoria Street, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia

    Matthew Sunderland, Alison Mahoney & Gavin Andrews

  2. St. Vincent’s Hospital, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Alison Mahoney & Gavin Andrews

  3. School of Psychiatry, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Matthew Sunderland, Alison Mahoney & Gavin Andrews

Authors
  1. Matthew Sunderland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alison Mahoney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gavin Andrews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew Sunderland.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9390-1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sunderland, M., Mahoney, A. & Andrews, G. Investigating the Factor Structure of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale in Community and Clinical Samples of the Australian Population. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 34, 253–259 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-012-9276-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-012-9276-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation