ArticleBMC psychology2026
Knowledge tests on adolescent depression and anxiety: a measure for adults in the Chilean school system.
Article in BMC 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Concerns about the mental health of young people have increased in recent years, and the knowledge of education professionals about mental health disorders is closely related to the identification of young people with these problems. Due to the scarcity of instruments to measure this knowledge, the present research aimed to develop and validate tests to measure knowledge about adolescent depression and anxiety to be answered by adults in the school system. We used a quantitative, non-experimental, and cross-sectional design. A non-probabilistic purposive sampling method was used to select participants. The sample comprised 10 expert judges for content validation, 16 teachers for cognitive interviews, and 304 professionals from educational establishments for administering the tests. Items were developed based on a literature review and the DSM-5; concordance among judges was calculated using Aiken's V coefficient. Difficulty and discrimination analyses were carried out using Classical Test Theory (CTT), a well-established framework that is well-suited to the sample size and the exploratory nature of this study. Group contrast was used as validity evidence, and the Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient was calculated. In total, 45 items resulted; the depression test has 17 items in the symptoms dimension and 10 in risk factors, and the anxiety test has 12 in the symptoms dimension and 6 in risk factors. In terms of reliability, the depression test yielded coefficients of 0.864 for the symptoms dimension and 0.742 for the risk factors dimension. The anxiety scale showed coefficients of 0.873 and 0.846 for the symptoms and risk factors dimensions, respectively. The results provide preliminary psychometric evidence of content validity and internal consistency, based on a non-probabilistic regional sample from southern Chile. Future research should replicate these findings in larger, more diverse samples and apply advanced modeling approaches, such as Item Response Theory, to further evaluate the instruments' properties.
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.