ArticleBMC psychology2025
Dimensionality, reliability, invariance, and item analysis of the depression, anxiety, and stress scale-21 (DASS-21) in Honduran and Colombian university students.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe 21-item Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21) is a widely used instrument for assessing psychological distress in diverse populations worldwide. Nonetheless, in the Honduran and Colombian contexts there is a paucity of studies evaluating the scale's factorial structure, examining item-level parameters, and investigating measurement invariance at both the dimension and item levels. The present study analyzes the psychometric properties-structural validity, reliability, measurement invariance, item-level characteristics, and differential item functioning-of the DASS-21 among university students in Honduras and Colombia.
methodsA cross-sectional design was employed, involving 2,271 university students (1,112 from Honduras and 1,159 from Colombia). The full sample comprised 68.10% women, with a mean age of 22.21 ± 5.03 years. The participants completed the DASS-21 through an online form. As part of the factorial modeling, several structures were tested via confirmatory factor analysis; configural, metric, and scalar invariance across countries were examined; and the reliability of the best-fitting model was estimated. In addition, an item response theory evaluation was carried out with a multidimensional graded response model (MGRM) that estimated two parameters-discrimination and thresholds-and differential item functioning (DIF) was assessed.
resultsThe correlated three-factor model of the DASS-21 was identified as the best-fitting structure, as indicated by satisfactory fit indices (comparative fit index [CFI] and Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] > .95; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] < .08) and factor loadings (λ > .40; p < .01). Acceptable reliability coefficients were obtained for each dimension (Ω > .80). This model demonstrated configural, metric, and scalar invariance across countries. Findings from the multidimensional graded response model showed acceptable discrimination and threshold estimates for all the items. Uniform differential item functioning was detected in four items of the scale (p < .05).
conclusionsThe results provide favorable psychometric evidence supporting the use of the DASS-21 as a screening tool for assessing depression, anxiety, and stress among Honduran and Colombian university students. Evidence of measurement invariance allows cross-cultural comparisons of latent means. Nevertheless, caution is advised when making country-specific item-level comparisons for the items that exhibited DIF.
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.