ArticleCureus2025
Validity and Reliability of the Filipino Version of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionKessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6) is a self-administered and short screening instrument for non-specific psychological distress and is used internationally in epidemiological studies because of its good psychometric properties. K6 can be feasibly used to screen for mental health problems in settings with limited mental health professionals, such as in low- and middle-income countries. This study aims to examine the psychometric validity, construct validity, and internal consistency of the Filipino version of K6.
methodsThe participants were recruited from the community in Muntinlupa City, Philippines, and from patients in a psychiatric unit run by the local government in Muntinlupa. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data from both groups. The questionnaire assessed sociodemographic characteristics and included the K6 scale. For outpatients, in addition to the items used for community members, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5), and World Health Organization Quality of Life - BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) were employed to examine construct validity. Depression severity and diagnosis were determined by a psychiatrist or a resident doctor based on an unstructured clinical interview with three options: mild, moderate, and severe, and diagnostic criteria, respectively. Internal consistency and psychometric validity were assessed using Cronbach's α and an unpaired t-test for the total K6 score between patients assessed as having mild depression and those with moderate or severe depression, respectively. K6 scores of community people and patients from the psychiatric unit were compared using a Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsIn total, 95 people from the psychiatric unit (27 male patients, 77 female patients, and one gender-diverse) and 405 people from the community (178 male participants, 226 female participants, and one gender-diverse) participated in the study. Cronbach's α of K6 was 0.88. Patients in the psychiatric unit had higher K6 total scores (median 14.00) than the participants from the community (median 3.00). Coefficient correlation analysis showed that K6 was strongly and positively correlated with PHQ-9 (
conclusionThe Filipino version of K6 is appropriate for measuring psychological distress in clinical and community settings. The Filipino version of K6, including cutoff points, will be a useful tool in the local context in practice and can be used as a measurement tool in studies to promote mental health in various settings.
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.