MedElevator
Войти в исследования Brain impairment : a multidisciplinary journal of the Australian Society for the Study of Brain Impairment · 2026
Reconceptualising the factor structure of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) for traumatic brain injury.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Samiotis Alexia, Carmichael Jai, Wong Dana, Gould Kate Rachel, Johnston Lisa, Ponsford Jennie, Spitz Gershon
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We used contemporary factor analytic procedures to assess whether the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) can reliably differentiate depression, anxiety and stress in individuals with traumatic brain injury.
METHODS: A total of 136 adults (Mage = 38.51 years; 77.94% male) with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury completed the DASS42. Various confirmatory factor models were estimated for both the DASS21 and DASS42, with a focus on novel statistical indices derived from bifactor modelling.
RESULTS: Bifactor modelling revealed a dominant general distress factor, accounting for 89% of the systematic variance in DASS21 total scores. Specific depression, anxiety and stress factors added little specific information when holding the general factor constant, accounting for only 11-27% of residual systematic variance in the subscale scores. Omitting the specific factors and instead treating the DASS21 as a unidimensional measure introduced minimal bias in parameter estimates. However, some multidimensionality was apparent when considering individual items, particularly from the depression scale. Additionally, first- and second-order factor models indicated that the specific factors were not well-differentiated from one another or from the general factor. These findings extended to the DASS42.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, scores on the DASS after traumatic brain injury predominately reflect a single underlying latent variable of general distress, providing support for using the total score over the three conventional scales.
METHODS: A total of 136 adults (Mage = 38.51 years; 77.94% male) with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury completed the DASS42. Various confirmatory factor models were estimated for both the DASS21 and DASS42, with a focus on novel statistical indices derived from bifactor modelling.
RESULTS: Bifactor modelling revealed a dominant general distress factor, accounting for 89% of the systematic variance in DASS21 total scores. Specific depression, anxiety and stress factors added little specific information when holding the general factor constant, accounting for only 11-27% of residual systematic variance in the subscale scores. Omitting the specific factors and instead treating the DASS21 as a unidimensional measure introduced minimal bias in parameter estimates. However, some multidimensionality was apparent when considering individual items, particularly from the depression scale. Additionally, first- and second-order factor models indicated that the specific factors were not well-differentiated from one another or from the general factor. These findings extended to the DASS42.
CONCLUSION: In conclusion, scores on the DASS after traumatic brain injury predominately reflect a single underlying latent variable of general distress, providing support for using the total score over the three conventional scales.