ArticleBMC pediatrics2025
Test-retest reliability and factor structure of the Danish 6-item version of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-core depression (SCL-6) in adolescents.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundShort efficient questionnaires to detect depressive symptoms in adolescents are sparsely evaluated. We aimed to examine the test-retest reliability and structural and convergent validity of the Danish version of the 6-item version of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-core depression (SCL-6) in adolescents.
methodsOur study population consisted of 122 adolescents. Ninety-one adolescents completed SCL-6 (test sample) in the first round, 82 adolescents completed SCL-6 in the second round (retest sample), with 66 completing the questionnaire both rounds (test-retest sample). Reliability was evaluated by intraclass correlation (ICC) and standard error of measurement (SEM), and structural validity was evaluated by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Mokken analyses. Convergent validity was assessed using the 4-item version of the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-DC4).
resultsThe mean sum score in the test sample was higher than in the retest sample (0.74 (95% CI:0.06;1.43)). The limits of agreement (LoA) were broad (-4.73;6.21). The intraclass correlation (ICC(1,1)) was 0.79 (95% CI:0.67;0.87)) showed good reliability, while the SEM (2.03 (95% CI: 1.68; 2.37)) was large considering the range of the scale. Cronbach's alpha showed good internal consistency at both test (0.80) and retest (0.81). The inter-item correlations and Mokken analyses supported the conclusion of a unidimensional scale. The CFA did not find an acceptable fit of a one factor solution. The convergent validity showed a moderate correlation with the CES-DC4 (0.48).
conclusionSCL-6 showed acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The results from the CFA were inconclusive in terms of demonstrating unidimensionality, but Mokken analyses supported unidimensionality like previous studies. We find the scale usable for population-based research on depressive symptoms in adolescents, but do not recommend it as screening tool on individual level.
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.