ArticleFrontiers in psychology2025
Screening mental health risks for adolescents in South Korea.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation are significant mental health problems among adolescents, especially in South Korea, which has one of the highest adolescent suicide rates globally. However, few standardized and validated mental health screening tools exist for this population. This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties and establish normative data for the Mental Health Screening Tool for Depressive Disorder (MHS: D), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (MHS: A), and Suicide Risk (MHS: S) in South Korean adolescents. Methods: An online survey involving 6,689 students and out-of-school youths (aged 10-18 years) was conducted between July and August 2021. Psychometric properties-including reliability, validity, and measurement invariance-were assessed by comparing adolescent and adult samples and demographic subgroups within the adolescent sample. Results: All three screening tools demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α: MHS: D = 0.92, MHS: A = 0.93, and MHS: S = 0.86) and adequate unidimensional factor structure in the adolescent sample. A multi-group confirmatory factor analysis showed that the unidimensional factor structure of each instrument was maintained between the adolescent and adult samples, and that measurement invariance was maintained across adolescent sex and age subgroups. Reference norms indicated higher symptom prevalence among girls compared to boys, with symptom severity increasing with age. Significant correlations with mental health indicators (i.e., somatization, self-harm, perceived stress, and peritraumatic COVID-19 stress) supported the high construct validity of the instruments and highlighted the detrimental impact of mental health concerns on overall well-being. Conclusion: The MHS: D, MHS: A, and MHS: S demonstrated excellent psychometric properties across sex and age subgroups in a representative adolescent sample. Using these validated tools in clinical and community settings can aid in monitoring adolescent mental health and preventing suicide risk.
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.