Cited by 196Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and TestingMental Health Research Topics

The convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21)

Lee, Dohyun·2019·Journal of Affective Disorders

Abstract

Background Previous validity studies of Depression Anxiety Stress Scales-21 (DASS-21) through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were limited by yielding poor factor loading values and eventually skipping the critical process addressing convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity. Without the crucial process, it was risky that past studies insisted DASS-21 be ready for use. Therefore, the current study examined DASS-21 regarding the three kinds of validity to determine if DASS-21 can be further used in the future.Methods The current study formulated a CFA model (i.e., modified one-factor model) of DASS-21, which yielded factor loading values over β = 0.70 and estimated a latent variable of Psychological Distress by employing indicators of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress. The data collection was conducted at two universities in the U.S. and South Korea in November 2016 (N = 255). The study participants completed an online survey developed with DASS-21. With the collected data, the present study investigated the convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity of the modified one-factor model of DASS-21 through CFA.Results The model fit of the modified one-factor model was complete as saturated. The convergent validity coefficient of Psychological Distress was 0.87, and average variance extracted of the variable was 0.68. The three correlations among the measured variables (i.e., indicators) were 0.50 < r < 0.75.Limitations Application of the current study's findings to youth or older adults can be limited as the subjects were young adults.Conclusions The current study made substantial evidence regarding the convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity of DASS-21 through CFA.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jad.2019.06.036

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lee, D.
Affiliations
North Carolina Central University (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Dohyun
Venue
Journal of Affective Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
259
Pages
136-142
ISSN
0165-0327 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2955273238
Cited by
196
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 2
FWCI
24.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Affective Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Indiana University Bloomington
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
DASS-21, convergent validity, discriminant validity, nomological validity, psychological distress, depression, anxiety, stress, factor structure, young adults
MeSH terms
Psychological Distress, Adolescent, Aged, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Depression, Depressive Disorder, Employment, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Stress, Psychological, Universities, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult, Republic of Korea

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review