European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2024
Examining the Factor Structure and Validity of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21.
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.
Jacobsen Grant, Casanova Madeline P, Dluzniewski Alexandra, Reeves Ashley J, Baker Russell T
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The prevalence of mental health disorders calls for valid and reliable instruments that are easy to administer and assess for clinicians and researchers. The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) is a commonly used instrument to assess psychological distress; however, model fit and internal reliability issues have been reported. Our objective was to assess the factorial and structural validity of the DASS-21.
METHODS: A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the full sample (n = 1036) to assess the proposed three-factor DASS-21 using a priori cut-off values. Because model fit indices were not met, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify a parsimonious model. The resulting three-factor structure (i.e., DASS-9) was then assessed using CFA and multigroup invariance testing procedures.
RESULTS: The proposed three-factor DASS-21 did not meet model fit criteria. The DASS-9 did meet recommended model fit criteria and was invariant between sex, injury status, mental health diagnosis, and activity level groups. Statistically different group means were found between mental health diagnosis and activity level groups, while no differences between sex or injury status groups were found.
CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides support to use a condensed DASS-21 instrument, such as the DASS-9. Future research is necessary to establish the DASS-9 prior to its adoption in research and clinical practice. Additionally, there is a need to identify and review all condensed versions of the DASS-21, so individuals know which instrument can be used for clinical or research purposes.
METHODS: A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the full sample (n = 1036) to assess the proposed three-factor DASS-21 using a priori cut-off values. Because model fit indices were not met, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to identify a parsimonious model. The resulting three-factor structure (i.e., DASS-9) was then assessed using CFA and multigroup invariance testing procedures.
RESULTS: The proposed three-factor DASS-21 did not meet model fit criteria. The DASS-9 did meet recommended model fit criteria and was invariant between sex, injury status, mental health diagnosis, and activity level groups. Statistically different group means were found between mental health diagnosis and activity level groups, while no differences between sex or injury status groups were found.
CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides support to use a condensed DASS-21 instrument, such as the DASS-9. Future research is necessary to establish the DASS-9 prior to its adoption in research and clinical practice. Additionally, there is a need to identify and review all condensed versions of the DASS-21, so individuals know which instrument can be used for clinical or research purposes.