Validity of the Kessler Psychological Distress scale in Brazilian higher education students

Authors

  • Jaqueline Galdino Albuquerque Perrelli Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, São Paulo, SP, Brasil. Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Departamento de Enfermagem, Recife, PE, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4934-1335
  • Gabriel Vinícius Souza de Vasconcelos Universidade Federal de Pernambuco. Departamento de Serviço Social, Recife, PE, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0009-0007-2756-0437
  • Jéssica Rodrigues Correia e Sá Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brasil. Faculdade de Medicina de Olinda, Unidade Curricular Integração Academia, Serviço e Comunidade, Olinda, PE, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3383-2535
  • Pollyanna Fausta Pimentel de Medeiros Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, São Paulo, SP, Brasil. Centro Universitário Maurício de Nassau, Graças, Recife, PE, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1679-5330
  • Roberta Uchôa Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Departamento de Serviço Social, Recife, PE, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5473-657X
  • Zila Sanchez Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Departamento de Medicina Preventiva, São Paulo, SP, Brasil. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7427-7956

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.7073.4255

Keywords:

Stress Psychological , Validation Study , Students , Mental Disorders , Higher Education , Reproducibility of Results

Abstract

Objective: to evaluate of the validity of the Brazilian version of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, based on its internal structure, concurrent validity, and predictive validity, for the screening of psychological distress among higher education students. Method: methodological study with 1,034 participants, using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale as well as the Self-Reporting Questionnaire. An analysis of the internal structure was conducted using a two-factor confirmatory factor analysis, which evaluated fit indices and hierarchical omega reliability coefficients. A Pearson’s correlation test was used to assess concurrent validity, while sensitivity, specificity, areas under the ROC curve and 95% confidence intervals were used to assess predictive validity. Results: the bifactor model demonstrated excellent fit indices (CFI=1.000; TLI=0.999; SRMR=0.019; RMSEA=0.028; 95%CI: 0.015 - 0.041) as well as high reliability (ωH=0.886). It was observed that there was a strong correlation between the K10 and the SRQ (r=0.813; 95%CI: 0.784 - 0.837). The ideal cut-off point for screening was identified as being higher than 21, with a sensitivity of 85.2% and a specificity of 82.9%. Conclusion: the structure composed of a general factor, psychological distress, demonstrated a high level of reliability. The scale demonstrated concurrent and predictive validity for the assessment of psychological distress among university students.

Downloads

Author Biography

  • Gabriel Vinícius Souza de Vasconcelos, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco. Departamento de Serviço Social, Recife, PE, Brasil.

    Departamento de Serviço Social, Recife, PE, Brasil. Bolsista do Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Brasil.

Downloads

Published

2024-11-22

Issue

Vol. 32 (2024)

Section

Original Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2024 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.
Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
 Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.

 

How to Cite

Validity of the Kessler Psychological Distress scale in Brazilian higher education students. (2024). Revista Latino-Americana De Enfermagem, 32, e4255. https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.7073.4255