MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2416375020 · doi:10.1037/pas0000188

The performance of the K6 scale in a large school sample: A follow-up study evaluating measurement invariance on the Idaho Youth Prevention Survey.

2015· article· en· W2416375020 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas C. Peiper, Alexander Lee, Stephanie Lindsay, Nathan Drashner, Janeena Wing

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsReach Technologies (Canada)
FundersSubstance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
KeywordsPsychologyPsycINFOMeasurement invarianceContext (archaeology)Scale (ratio)Sample (material)Confirmatory factor analysisConstruct validityDistressClinical psychologyPsychometricsDevelopmental psychologyStructural equation modelingStatisticsPolitical scienceMEDLINEGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2013, Idaho has been building capacity and infrastructure through the Strategic Prevention Framework State Incentive Grant to prevent substance abuse and related problems, namely psychiatric morbidity. As this federal initiative requires states to engage in data-driven strategic planning at the state and community levels, clinically validated instruments are particularly valuable in the context of school surveys that have limited space and require timely administration. Thus, the K6 scale was included on the 2014 Idaho Youth Prevention Survey as a measure of nonspecific psychological distress. To verify the unidimensional structure of the K6, principal axis and confirmatory factor analyses were performed in a school-based sample of Idaho students (n = 12,150). A series of multigroup confirmatory factor analyses were then performed to evaluate measurement invariance across gender, age, and race. Overall, the prevalence of serious psychological distress in the past 30 days was 17.2% in Idaho. Factor analyses confirmed the 1-factor solution of the K6. Four levels of measurement invariance were demonstrated across gender, age, and race. Together, these results further illustrate the construct validity of the K6 for use in adolescent populations. Other states are encouraged to include the K6 on their school surveys to facilitate policy planning and resource allocation as well as generate cross-state comparisons. (PsycINFO Database Record

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.246
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.172 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological AssessmentSame topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207