The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being
The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being
复制标题
DOI：
10.1017/s0033291702006700
复制
发表时间：
2003-02-01
影响因子：
6.9
通讯作者：
Andrews, G
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Furukawa, TA;Kessler, RC;Andrews, G
背景两个新的筛选量表的心理困扰，K6和K10，已开发，但其相对效率尚未进行评估，与现有的量表相比。澳大利亚全国心理健康和福祉调查是一项具有全国代表性的家庭调查，采用世卫组织综合国际诊断访谈（CIDI）评估30天的DSM-IV疾病。K6和K10也与一般健康问卷（GHQ-12）一起进行沿着，GHQ-12是目前精神健康筛查的事实标准。通过计算受试者工作特征曲线（AUC）下的面积来评估三种筛查量表在检测CIDI/DSM-IV情绪和焦虑障碍中的性能。计算分层特异性似然比（SSLR），以帮助从其他样本的筛查量表评分中产生个体水平的预测概率。在筛查CIDI/DSM-IV情绪和焦虑障碍方面，K10略优于K6（K10 AUC：0（.）90，95%CI：0（.）89 - 0（.）91与K6 AUC：0（.）89，95%CI：0（.）88 - 0（.）90），而两者均显著优于GHQ-12（AUC：0（.）80，95%CI：0（.）78 - 0（.）82）。K10和K6的SSLR在排除或排除目标疾病方面比GHQ-12在人群谱两端的SSLR提供更多信息。K6比K10对子样本变异更稳健。虽然K10在筛查严重疾病方面可能优于K6，但K6在筛查任何DSM-IV情绪或焦虑障碍时都是首选，因为它在子样本中的简洁性和一致性。通过使用多分类而不是二分类，个体水平预测的精度得到了极大的提高。
Background. Two new screening scales for psychological distress, the K6 and K10, have been developed but their relative efficiency has not been evaluated in comparison with existing scales.Method. The Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being, a nationally representative household survey, administered the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) to assess 30-day DSM-IV disorders. The K6 and K10 were also administered along with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), the current de facto standard of mental health screening. Performance of the three screening scales in detecting CIDI/DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders was assessed by calculating the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). Stratum-Specific Likelihood Ratios (SSLRs) were computed to help produce individual-level predicted probabilities of being a case from screening scale scores in other samples.Results. The K10 was marginally better than the K6 in screening for CIDI/DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders (K10 AUC: 0(.)90, 95%CI: 0(.)89-0(.)91 versus K6 AUC: 0(.)89, 95%CI: 0(.)88-0(.)90), while both were significantly better than the GHQ-12 (AUC: 0(.)80, 95%CI: 0(.)78-0(.)82). The SSLRs of the K10 and K6 were more informative in ruling in or out the target disorders than those of the GHQ-12 at both ends of the population spectrum. The K6 was more robust than the K10 to subsample variation.Conclusions. While the K10 might outperform the K6 in screening for severe disorders, the K6 is preferred in screening for any DSM-IV mood or anxiety disorder because of its brevity and consistency across subsamples. Precision of individual-level prediction is greatly improved by using polychotomous rather than dichotomous classification.