Calculating the Risks of “Prescriptive Measurement” versus “Meaningful Measurement” in integrated care: An Example with the Kessler Distress Scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The application of measurement science in early intervention mental health is in its infancy, with a lack of youth-centred and culturally specific measures. Kessler’s Distress Scale (K10) is widely recommended to evaluate youth mental health services internationally, even though its suitability has been assessed incompletely. Our aim was to examine the K10’s fitness for purpose as an outcome measure for evaluating integrated care services for youth age 12-24 years. Method: We conducted a qualitative study evaluating the K10’s development against current recommendations for developing patient reported outcomes (PROs) measures. We also conducted a quantitative study examining the K10’s measurement properties, using two psychometric methods, in data from 7360 youth accessing services at nine Canadian youth mental health centres. Results: Our qualitative study concluded K10’s development did not meet requirements for measurement. Specifically, the concept for measurement was neither defined nor conceptualised and items were selected statistically. In stark contrast, our quantitative study [mean age 18.5 years (SD = 2.9), 65% female] concluded K10 is “reliable and valid”. Conclusion: K10’s “validity” in a quantitative but not qualitative sense means K10 measures something, but it is unclear what that something is, resulting in a weak scientific basis for developing and evaluating youth mental health services. This measurement paradox arises because K10’s items were selected statistically. Our study highlights the fundamental requirement for scales used in integrated care environments to have strong conceptual bases, the misleading nature of quantitative psychometric evaluations developed without qualitative examinations, and the urgent need for integrated care services to have new fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcomes co-designed by youth and fit for purpose to improve the outcomes and experiences of youth.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.562 | 0.737 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".