Measurement equivalence of English versus native language versions of the Kessler 6 (K6) Scale: An examination in three Asian American groups.

Abstract

The use of languages other than English in population-based surveys is necessitated by the linguistic diversities in the United States. However, inclusion of multiple languages in survey data collection raises concerns about whether an instrument administered in different languages functions equivalently across groups. Using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale 6 (K6), the present study examined differential item functioning (DIF) between surveys conducted either in English or the native language of the groups of Chinese Americans (n = 622), Korean Americans (n = 471), and Vietnamese Americans (n = 513). DIF analyses using a series of multiple indicator multiple cause (MIMIC) models showed that there were substantial differences between English and non-English versions in the endorsement of the K6 items, with patterns that differed by ethnicity. The K4 (depressed) showed DIF in all three groups: non-English survey users consistently showed a higher degree of endorsement compared to their English using counterparts. It is speculated that its translated expression in Asian languages may carry less associations with illness/disorder than the English word, thereby making it easy to endorse among Asian language survey users. Findings suggest a lack of measurement equivalence between the K6 administered in English and Asian languages and call for caution in cross-linguistic contexts.

How and When Does Inclusive Leadership Curb Psychological Distress During a Crisis? Evidence From the COVID-19 Outbreak

“…A sample statement is “When I get up in the morning, I feel like going to work.” Cronbach’s alpha was 0.91. Psychological Distress was measured through the six-item K6 scale developed by Kessler and Mroczek (1994) for non-specific psychological distress over the past 30 days (0 = none to 4 = all the time) with a Chinese version validated by Jang et al (2018) . Cronbach’s alpha was 0.86.…”

How inclusive leadership paves way for psychological well‐being of employees during trauma and crisis: A three‐wave longitudinal mediation study

“…The Chinese version validated by Jang et al. (2018) was used. It has been regularly used by National Health Services in UK for annual surveys between 1997 and 2015 (Patel et al., 2018) and multiple studies have shown acceptable psychometric properties (Jong Won & Sun Hae, 2015).…”

Caring for the caregiver during COVID-19 outbreak: Does inclusive leadership improve psychological safety and curb psychological distress? A cross-sectional study

“…Cronbach's α was 0.82, and the composite reliability was 0.87, with an average variance extracted value of 0.530. The Chinese and Korean versions were recently validated for Asian American respondents by Jang et al. (2018) .…”