1,131
Views
20
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Article

Danish translation and validation of Kessler’s 10-item psychological distress scale – K10

, , , , , , & show all
Pages 411-416 | Received 19 Nov 2016, Accepted 23 Mar 2017, Published online: 18 Apr 2017
 

Abstract

Background: Psychological distress is a trans-diagnostic feature of mental suffering closely associated with mental disorders. Kessler’s 10-item Psychological Distress Scale (K10), a scale with sound psychometric properties, is widely used in epidemiological studies.

Aim: To translate and investigate whether K10 is a reliable and valid rating scale for the measurement of psychological distress in a Danish population.

Methods: The translation was carried out according to official WHO translation guidelines. A sample of 100 subjects was included, 54 patients from the regional Mental Health Service (MHS) and 46 subjects with no psychiatric history. All participants were assessed with a psychiatric diagnostic interview (MINI) and handed out K10. Concurrent validity was assessed by WHO Well-being Index (WHO-5). Correlation matrix analysis was conducted for the full sample and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves for discriminating mental health service affiliation.

Results: Mean K10 scores differed, with decreasing levels, between inpatients and outpatient in MHS and the subjects with no psychiatric history. Factor analysis confirmed a unidimensional structure, and Cronbach’s alpha and Omega showed excellent internal reliability. AUC for the K10 ROC curves showed excellent sensitivity (0.947 [0.900–0.995]), accurately differentiating mental health from non-mental health patients.

Conclusion: The Danish K10 has the same strong internal reliability as the original English version, and scores differ between psychiatric patients in outpatient and emergency ward settings.

Clinical implications: The Danish K10 translation is authorized and freely available for download at https://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/ncs/k6_scales.php. The utility as an instrument for clinical screening in a mental healthcare setting is supported.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Log in via your institution

Log in to Taylor & Francis Online

PDF download + Online access

  • 48 hours access to article PDF & online version
  • Article PDF can be downloaded
  • Article PDF can be printed
USD 65.00 Add to cart

Issue Purchase

  • 30 days online access to complete issue
  • Article PDFs can be downloaded
  • Article PDFs can be printed
USD 123.00 Add to cart

* Local tax will be added as applicable

Related Research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.