Cited by 146Mental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The distress questionnaire-5: population screener for psychological distress was more accurate than the k6/k10

Open access
Batterham, Philip J., Sunderland, Matthew, Carragher, Natacha, Calear, Alison L., Mackinnon, Andrew J., Slade, Tim·2016·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

Objective The K6 and K10 are well-validated screening measures for psychological distress and are widely used. However, the accuracy of these scales in identifying common mental disorders may be suboptimal. This study aimed to develop a brief scale of psychological distress--the Distress Questionnaire-5 (DQ5)--and validate its diagnostic accuracy in identifying common mental disorders, relative to the K6 and K10.Study design and setting The DQ5 was developed from a pool of 347 items reflecting a range of mental health symptoms. Validation of the DQ5 was conducted concurrently, on the basis of DSM-5 criteria for seven common mental disorders. A population-based sample of Australian adults (n = 3,175) was recruited online, with data weighted to reflect population estimates of disorder prevalence, age, and gender.Results At specified cut points, the DQ5 was significantly more accurate in identifying individuals who met criteria for each of the disorders examined relative to the K6, with the exception of major depression where there was no significant difference in sensitivity or specificity.Conclusion The DQ5 is a promising tool for identifying psychological distress in the community, with potential for use in a range of clinical settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.10.005

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

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

2 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Batterham, P. J., Sunderland, M., Carragher, N., Calear, A. L., Mackinnon, A. J., & Slade, T.
Affiliations
  • Australian National University (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Batterham, Philip J.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-03
Volume
71
Pages
35-42
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2177427600
Cited by
146
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3
FWCI
7.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (UNSW Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • 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
Keywords
psychological distress, K6, K10, common mental disorders, diagnostic accuracy, screening tool, major depressive disorder, sensitivity and specificity, DSM-5 diagnostic criteria, community mental health
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Australia, Mental Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, ROC Curve, Sensitivity and Specificity, Stress, Psychological, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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