ArticleRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2024
Validity of the Kessler Psychological Distress scale in Brazilian higher education students.
Article in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
to evaluate of the validity of the Brazilian version of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, based on its internal structure, concurrent validity, and predictive validity, for the screening of psychological distress among higher education students. methodological study with 1,034 participants, using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale as well as the Self-Reporting Questionnaire. An analysis of the internal structure was conducted using a two-factor confirmatory factor analysis, which evaluated fit indices and hierarchical omega reliability coefficients. A Pearson's correlation test was used to assess concurrent validity, while sensitivity, specificity, areas under the ROC curve and 95% confidence intervals were used to assess predictive validity. the bifactor model demonstrated excellent fit indices (CFI=1.000; TLI=0.999; SRMR=0.019; RMSEA=0.028; 95%CI: 0.015 - 0.041) as well as high reliability (ωH=0.886). It was observed that there was a strong correlation between the K10 and the SRQ (r=0.813; 95%CI: 0.784 - 0.837). The ideal cut-off point for screening was identified as being higher than 21, with a sensitivity of 85.2% and a specificity of 82.9%. the structure composed of a general factor, psychological distress, demonstrated a high level of reliability. The scale demonstrated concurrent and predictive validity for the assessment of psychological distress among university students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.