Examining the Factor Structure and Validity of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21.

Grant Jacobsen, Madeline P Casanova, Alexandra Dluzniewski, Ashley J Reeves, Russell T Baker
{"title":"Examining the Factor Structure and Validity of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21.","authors":"Grant Jacobsen, Madeline P Casanova, Alexandra Dluzniewski, Ashley J Reeves, Russell T Baker","doi":"10.3390/ejihpe14110192","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":30631,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education","volume":"14 11","pages":"2932-2943"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Investigation in Health Psychology and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe14110192","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究抑郁焦虑压力量表-21 的因子结构和有效性。
背景:心理健康疾病的流行需要有效可靠、便于临床医生和研究人员使用和评估的工具。抑郁焦虑压力量表-21(DASS-21)是一种常用的评估心理困扰的工具,但有报道称它存在模型拟合和内部可靠性问题。我们的目标是评估 DASS-21 的因子效度和结构效度:方法:我们对全部样本(n = 1036)进行了确认性因子分析(CFA),使用先验临界值评估了所提出的三因子 DASS-21。由于模型拟合指数不符合要求,因此进行了探索性因子分析(EFA),以确定一个合理的模型。然后使用 CFA 和多组不变量测试程序对由此产生的三因素结构(即 DASS-9)进行评估:结果:提议的三因素 DASS-21 不符合模型拟合标准。DASS-9符合推荐的模型拟合标准,并且在性别、受伤状况、精神健康诊断和活动水平组之间具有不变量。在心理健康诊断组和活动水平组之间发现了统计学上不同的组平均值,而在性别或受伤状况组之间没有发现差异:结论:目前的研究支持使用简化的 DASS-21 工具,如 DASS-9。未来的研究有必要在研究和临床实践中采用 DASS-9 之前对其进行确定。此外,还需要确定并审查 DASS-21 的所有精简版本,以便个人了解哪种工具可用于临床或研究目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
111
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Examining the Factor Structure and Validity of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21. Addressing the Sense of School Belonging Among All Students? A Systematic Literature Review. Bivalent Fears of Evaluation in Social Anxiety: Evaluation of an Extended Psychoevolutionary Model. Parental Burnout-A Model of Risk Factors and Protective Resources Among Mothers of Children with/Without Special Needs. Analysis of Gender Issues in Computational Thinking Approach in Science and Mathematics Learning in Higher Education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1