Assessing distress in the community: psychometric properties and crosswalk comparison of eight measures of psychological distress
Assessing distress in the community: psychometric properties and crosswalk comparison of eight measures of psychological distress
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0033291717002835
复制
发表时间：
2018-06-01
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
Carragher, N.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Batterham, P. J.;Sunderland, M.;Carragher, N.
背景资料。有许多方法可以用来衡量社区的心理痛苦。有限的研究对这些量表进行了比较，以确定性能最好的工具。衡量痛苦程度的一个通用指标将使研究人员和临床医生能够在不同的衡量标准上取得相同的分数。目前的研究评估了8个心理苦恼量表，并开发了人行横道(在一个共同的度量上代表多个量表的表格/图形)，以使这些量表上的分数相等。对澳大利亚在线成人样本(N=3620，80%为女性)进行了8种心理苦恼测量：患者健康问卷-4、Kessler-10/Kessler-6、苦恼问卷-5(DQ5)、心理健康问卷-5、Hopkins症状自评量表-25(HSCL-25)、自我报告问卷-20(SRQ-20)和苦恼温度计。测试了每种测量方法在确定一系列精神障碍的DSM-5标准方面的表现。用验证性因素分析(CFA)评估一维潜在结构的量表适合性。最后，运用项目反应理论编制了人行横道。DQ5在识别符合DSM-5标准的个体方面表现最佳，适合一维结构。HSCL-25和SRQ-20在识别干酪性方面也有足够的适合性，但特异性和/或敏感性不如DQ5。8个量表的组合题库的一维CFA显示出可接受的拟合度，可以创建人行横道量表。DQ5在识别精神健康问题的风险方面表现最佳。在这项研究中开发的人行横道表格将使遇险措施之间能够快速转换，提供更有效的数据汇总手段和资源，以便于解释来自多个遇险等级的分数。
Background. Many measures are available for measuring psychological distress in the community. Limited research has compared these scales to identify the best performing tools. A common metric for distress measures would enable researchers and clinicians to equate scores across different measures. The current study evaluated eight psychological distress scales and developed crosswalks (tables/figures presenting multiple scales on a common metric) to enable scores on these scales to be equated.Methods. An Australian online adult sample (N = 3620, 80% female) was administered eight psychological distress measures: Patient Health Questionnaire-4, Kessler-10/Kessler-6, Distress Questionnaire-5 (DQ5), Mental Health Inventory-5, Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25), Self-Report Questionnaire-20 (SRQ-20) and Distress Thermometer. The performance of each measure in identifying DSM-5 criteria for a range of mental disorders was tested. Scale fit to a unidimensional latent construct was assessed using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Finally, crosswalks were developed using Item Response Theory.Results. The DQ5 had optimal performance in identifying individuals meeting DSM-5 criteria, with adequate fit to a unidimensional construct. The HSCL-25 and SRQ-20 also had adequate fit but poorer specificity and/or sensitivity than the DQ5 in identifying caseness. The unidimensional CFA of the combined item bank for the eight scales showed acceptable fit, enabling the creation of crosswalk tables.Conclusions. The DQ5 had optimal performance in identifying risk of mental health problems. The crosswalk tables developed in this study will enable rapid conversion between distress measures, providing more efficient means of data aggregation and a resource to facilitate interpretation of scores from multiple distress scales.