2020
DOI: 10.1007/s12144-020-00914-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validity of the depression, anxiety, and stress scale (DASS-21) in a sample of Korean university students

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

4
16
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
4
16
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…We provided further evidence for the validity of the scale by showing that the DASS-Depression, DASS-Anxiety and DASS-Stress subscales positively correlated with validated tests that measured depression and anxiety similar to previous studies (e.g., Alfonsson et al, 2017;Chan & Bernardo, 2017;Deokhoon et al, 2018;Lee & Kim, 2020;Sinclair et al, 2012). The subscales also had moderate positive correlations with tests that measure negative affect, similar to other studies (Henry & Crawford, 2005;Oei et al, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…We provided further evidence for the validity of the scale by showing that the DASS-Depression, DASS-Anxiety and DASS-Stress subscales positively correlated with validated tests that measured depression and anxiety similar to previous studies (e.g., Alfonsson et al, 2017;Chan & Bernardo, 2017;Deokhoon et al, 2018;Lee & Kim, 2020;Sinclair et al, 2012). The subscales also had moderate positive correlations with tests that measure negative affect, similar to other studies (Henry & Crawford, 2005;Oei et al, 2013).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…From the CFA, different measurement models were compared for the DASS-21. The results indicated a significantly higher fit for the bifactor model, corroborating studies conducted within American (Osman et al, 2012), Australian (Gomez, 2013;Shaw et al, 2017), Swedish (Alfonsson et al, 2017), Korean (Lee & Kim, 2020), Spanish (Ruiz et al, 2020), and English (Henry & Crawford, 2005) populations. However, it should be highlighted that, with the exception of the unifactorial model that presented fit indices classified as inadequate, the other models tested also presented satisfactory results and, therefore, can also be considered adequate.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…The bifactor model has managed to provide responses compatible with a latent structure that is simultaneously unidimensional (loads on a common factor) and multidimensional (loads on specific factors) (Cucina & Byle, 2017). This type of analysis was used in a series of studies with the instrument (Alfonsson, Wallin, & Maathz, 2017;Gomez, 2013;Henry & Crawford, 2005;Lee & Kim, 2020;Osman et al, 2012;Ruiz, García-Martín, Suárez-Falcón, & Odriozola-González, 2017;Shaw, Campbell, Runions, & Zubrick, 2017).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…CMH suitability testing is imperative to avoid putting any user at risk. Testing could be either conducted by an MHP or based on validated psychological tests such as the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale [ 57 , 58 ]. Psychological testing would help acquire an overview on the psychological state of the user to determine whether the intervention could be beneficial and appropriate for the specific user.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%