Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42164810›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Psychometric comparison of five short forms of the DASS in Mexican university students: implications for emotional distress screening.

Luis Hernando Silva Castillo, Enrique Hernández-Rosas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Luis Hernando Silva CastilloDepartamento de Psicología Educación y Salud, Western Institute of Technology and Higher Education, Tlaquepaque, Mexico.
Enrique Hernández-RosasPosgrado en Ciencias del Comportamiento, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Early identification of emotional distress in university students requires brief yet psychometrically sound instruments that enable efficient screening without sacrificing interpretive precision. Although the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) is widely used, its length has prompted the development of several short forms. However, direct comparative evidence to guide the selection of these versions in applied settings, particularly in Mexican populations, remains limited. Methods: This study compared five versions of the DASS (21, 14, 12, 9, and 8 items) within a single cohort of Mexican university students. Confirmatory factor analyses for ordinal data were used to test three-factor, hierarchical, and bifactor models. Additional evidence included hierarchical bifactor indices (ECV, Results: All versions showed adequate structural performance and external associations consistent with theoretical expectations. However, bifactor analyses indicated that the general distress factor became increasingly dominant as the number of items decreased, particularly in the DASS-9 and DASS-8, reducing discrimination among the specific dimensions. In contrast, the DASS-12 showed the most favorable balance between brevity, dimensional differentiation, and external validity, and also demonstrated scalar invariance by sex. Conclusion: Although all evaluated versions were useful for screening general emotional distress, the DASS-12 emerged as the most balanced short form for Mexican university students, combining operational efficiency with adequate preservation of the three-factor structure and comparability across sex.

Indexed as

anxietydepressionDepression Anxiety Stress Scalesmass screeningpsychologicalpsychometricsstress

Identifiers

PMID42164810
PMCPMC13184643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.