Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38840503›Full record

ArticleAssessment2025

Testing the Impact of Variations in Administration on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10).

Miranda R Chilver, Richard A Burns, Ferdi Botha, Peter Butterworth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Assessment, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Miranda R ChilverNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5796-4095
Richard A BurnsNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
Ferdi BothaMelbourne Institute: Applied Economic & Social Research, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0856-0240
Peter ButterworthNational Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Self-report measures are useful in psychological research and practice, but scores may be impacted by administration methods. This study investigated whether changing the recall period (from 30 to 7 days) and response option order (from ascending to descending) alters the score distribution of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10). Participants were presented with the K10 with either different recall periods or different response option orders. There was weak evidence of lower mean K10 scores when using a 7-day recall period than when using the 30-day recall period (B = 1.96, 95% CI [0.04-3.90]) but no evidence of a change in the estimated prevalence of very high psychological distress. Presenting the response options in ascending order did not affect mean scores, but there was weak evidence of reduced prevalence of very high distress relative to the descending order (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.60, 95% CI [0.36-0.98]). These findings suggest that varying the administration method may result in minor differences in population estimates of very high psychological distress when using the K10.

Indexed as

Psychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychological DistressSelf ReportStress, PsychologicalAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMental RecallMiddle AgedPsychometricsYoung Adultanxietybiasdepressionmeasurementpsychometricsrecall periodself-report

Identifiers

PMID38840503
PMCPMC12009444

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.