Cited by 294Psychometric Methodologies and TestingAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research Topics

Psychometric analysis of the brief symptom inventory 18 (BSI-18) in a representative German sample

Open access
Franke, Gabriele Helga, Jaeger, Susanne, Glaesmer, Heide, Barkmann, Claus, Petrowski, Katja, Braehler, Elmar·2017·BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The BSI-18 contains the three six-item scales somatization, depression, and anxiety as well as the Global Severity Index (GSI), including all 18 items. The BSI-18 is the latest and shortest of the multidimensional versions of the Symptom-Checklist 90-R, but its psychometric properties have not been sufficiently clarified yet. METHODS: Based on a representative sample of N = 2516 participants (aged 14-94 years), detailed psychometric analyses were carried out. RESULTS: The internal consistency was good: Somatization α = .82, Depression α = .87, Anxiety α = .84 and GSI α = .93. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the three scales as second-order and GSI as first-order factors. The model fit based on RMSEA is good but that model fit based on CFI and TLI are too low. CONCLUSIONS: Therefore, it is a very short, reliable instrument for the assessment of psychological distress. The BSI-18 can be used to reliably assess psychological distress in the general population. However, further studies need to evaluate the usefulness of standardization in clinical samples.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12874-016-0283-3

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The total sample showed higher somatization levels than a norm sample.

    “The total sample showed in comparison with a norm sample high levels of each of the three dimensions of depression (M = 4.18; SD = 4.52 vs. Mnorm=1.27; SDnorm=2.5, Franke et al. 2017) (t(570) = 15.40, p <.001), anxiety (M = 3.67; SD = 4.30, vs. Mnorm=1.09; SDnorm=2.1, ibd.) (t(570) = 14.35, p <.001), and somatization (M = 2.23, SD = 3.00, vs. Mnorm=0.70; SDnorm=14.8, ibd.) (t(570) = 12.18, p <.001”

    From Social media addiction: associations with attachment style, mental distress, and personality (2024) · cites this paper as Franke et al. 2017

    Table 2 (Results; page unavailable) reports a somatization mean of 0.70 for the representative sample’s 25–34-year-old subgroup, below the citing paper’s reported mean of 2.23. It does not give 0.70 as the mean for the entire norm sample; Table 1 gives that sample’s mean as 1.46. Table 2 also gives the subgroup SD as 1.8, not the cited 14.8. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The total sample showed higher anxiety levels than a norm sample.

    “The total sample showed in comparison with a norm sample high levels of each of the three dimensions of depression (M = 4.18; SD = 4.52 vs. Mnorm=1.27; SDnorm=2.5, Franke et al. 2017) (t(570) = 15.40, p <.001), anxiety (M = 3.67; SD = 4.30, vs. Mnorm=1.09; SDnorm=2.1, ibd.) (t(570) = 14.35, p <.001), and somatization (M = 2.23, SD = 3.00, vs. Mnorm=0.70; SDnorm=14.8, ibd.) (t(570) = 12.18, p <.001”

    From Social media addiction: associations with attachment style, mental distress, and personality (2024) · cites this paper as Franke et al. 2017

    Table 2 (Results > Factorial validity; page unavailable) reports an anxiety mean of 1.09 (SD 2.1), but only for participants aged 25–34 in the representative German sample. Table 1 reports 1.44 (SD 2.59) for the full sample. The cited paper supplies the quoted reference value, but the citing sentence presents an age-specific value as though it described the norm sample overall; the comparison with the citing authors’ sample is their own analysis. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The BSI-18 has a three-factor structure.

    “Confirmatory analyses confirm the three-factor structure [48].”

    From Social media addiction: associations with attachment style, mental distress, and personality (2024) · cites this paper as [48]

    The Abstract Results say confirmatory factor analysis supported the BSI-18’s three scales. However, they also say model fit was good by RMSEA but too low by CFI and TLI; the Results’ Factorial validity section reports those low values. Saying the analyses unqualifiedly ‘confirm’ the structure overstates the mixed fit evidence. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The total sample showed higher depression levels than a norm sample.

    “The total sample showed in comparison with a norm sample high levels of each of the three dimensions of depression (M = 4.18; SD = 4.52 vs. Mnorm=1.27; SDnorm=2.5, Franke et al. 2017) (t(570) = 15.40, p <.001), anxiety (M = 3.67; SD = 4.30, vs. Mnorm=1.09; SDnorm=2.1, ibd.) (t(570) = 14.35, p <.001), and somatization (M = 2.23, SD = 3.00, vs. Mnorm=0.70; SDnorm=14.8, ibd.) (t(570) = 12.18, p <.001”
  • The BSI-18 assesses mental stress validly in both normal and clinical populations.

    “The BSI-18 assesses validly mental stress in both normal population [48] and clinical populations [49].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [14]Derogatis LR BSI-18: Brief Symptom Inventory 18 - Administration, scoring, and procedures manual 2000 Minneapolis NCS Pearson

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Franke, G. H., Jaeger, S., Glaesmer, H., Barkmann, C., Petrowski, K., & Braehler, E.
Affiliations
  • Hochschule Magdeburg-Stendal (DE)
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
  • German Sport University Cologne (DE)
Corresponding author
Franke, Gabriele Helga
Venue
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2017-01-26
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
14-14
ISSN
1471-2288 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2579974238
Cited by
294
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3
FWCI
15.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • BMC Medical Research Methodology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
Brief Symptom Inventory-18, psychological distress, somatization, depression, anxiety, Global Severity Index, SCL-90-R, factor structure, internal consistency, German population
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety Disorders, Depressive Disorder, Female, Germany, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Somatoform Disorders, 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