Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42227010›Full record

ArticleCurrent psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)2026

Psychometric evaluation of the Kessler 10 measure of psychosocial distress using the 2022 South African population-based household survey.

Sbonelo Chamane, Musawenkosi Mabaso, Ronel Sewpaul, Lehlogonolo Makola, Sean Jooste, Sizulu Moyo, Nobuhle Mchunu, Yusentha Balakrishna, Nompumelelo Zungu, Olive Shisana and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 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

11 authors.

Sbonelo ChamanePublic Health, Societies and Belonging, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0001-5350-5203
Musawenkosi MabasoPublic Health, Societies and Belonging, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.
Ronel SewpaulPublic Health, Societies and Belonging, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.
Lehlogonolo MakolaPublic Health, Societies and Belonging, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.
Sean JoostePublic Health, Societies and Belonging, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.
Sizulu MoyoPublic Health, Societies and Belonging, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.
Nobuhle MchunuBiostatistics Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Durban, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-1832-2863
Yusentha BalakrishnaBiostatistics Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Durban, South Africa.
Nompumelelo ZunguPublic Health, Societies and Belonging, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.
Olive ShisanaDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
Khangelani ZumaPublic Health, Societies and Belonging, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) is widely used in epidemiological research but requires validation within South Africa's multilingual setting. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the K10 using national population-based survey data and Item Response Theory (IRT). Graded Response Models (GRM) were used to assess factor loadings, item discrimination, and difficulty parameters, while Test Information Curves evaluated measurement precision across the distress continuum. Differential Item Functioning (DIF) analysis examined language effects, supporting cross-group reliability. All items exhibited high factor loadings (0.86-0.96) and substantial communalities (> 0.74) in the unidimensional GRM. Although the multidimensional GRM showed marginal improvement, relatively low factor loadings limited its suitability. All items had high discrimination parameters, ranging from 2.89 (K1) to 5.78 (K6). Difficulty parameters (β1-β4) followed the expected increasing pattern across response categories. Items K6 and K9 were the most informative given by the highest discrimination values. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's Omega total = 0.95), while marginal reliability under the unidimensional IRT model was moderate (0.65). Items 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 were flagged for possible DIF by English-speaking status; effect sizes were negligible (R² < 0.002). This study provides robust evidence supporting the psychometric soundness of the K10 in a South African context. The scale functions as a unidimensional, internally consistent, and discriminating measure of psychological distress. Marginal reliability and information curves indicate it is most precise for detecting moderate-to-high distress levels, with potential for refinement in screening for milder symptoms.

Indexed as

DIFIRTPsychological distressPsychometric validationSouth Africa

Identifiers

PMID42227010
PMCPMC13222254

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.