The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being
Description
<jats:p><jats:bold>Background.</jats:bold> Two new screening scales for psychological distress, the K6 and K10, have been developed but their relative efficiency has not been evaluated in comparison with existing scales.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Method.</jats:bold> The Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being, a nationally representative household survey, administered the WHO Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) to assess 30-day DSM-IV disorders. The K6 and K10 were also administered along with the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), the current <jats:italic>de facto</jats:italic> standard of mental health screening. Performance of the three screening scales in detecting CIDI/DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders was assessed by calculating the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). Stratum-Specific Likelihood Ratios (SSLRs) were computed to help produce individual-level predicted probabilities of being a case from screening scale scores in other samples.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Results.</jats:bold> The K10 was marginally better than the K6 in screening for CIDI/DSM-IV mood and anxiety disorders (K10 AUC: 0·90, 95%CI: 0·89–0·91 <jats:italic>versus</jats:italic> K6 AUC: 0·89, 95%CI: 0·88–0·90), while both were significantly better than the GHQ-12 (AUC: 0·80, 95%CI: 0·78–0·82). The SSLRs of the K10 and K6 were more informative in ruling in or out the target disorders than those of the GHQ-12 at both ends of the population spectrum. The K6 was more robust than the K10 to subsample variation.</jats:p><jats:p><jats:bold>Conclusions.</jats:bold> While the K10 might outperform the K6 in screening for severe disorders, the K6 is preferred in screening for any DSM-IV mood or anxiety disorder because of its brevity and consistency across subsamples. Precision of individual-level prediction is greatly improved by using polychotomous rather than dichotomous classification.</jats:p>
Journal
-
- Psychological Medicine
-
Psychological Medicine 33 (2), 357-362, 2003-02
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
