Calculating the Risks of “Prescriptive Measurement” versus “Meaningful Measurement” in integrated care: An Example with the Kessler Distress Scale

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.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of Integrated Care
Published
2025-04-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.icic24196
Primary Topic
Psychiatric care and mental health services
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Calculating the Risks of “Prescriptive Measurement” versus “Meaningful Measurement” in integrated care: An Example with the Kessler Distress Scale

Skye Barbic
International Journal of Integrated Care
Psychiatric care and mental health services
article

Calculating the Risks of “Prescriptive Measurement” versus “Meaningful Measurement” in integrated care: An Example with the Kessler Distress Scale

Skye Barbic
article en

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.

International Journal of Integrated CareVol. 25
Openalex Percentile: Top 90%
Psychiatric care and mental health services
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.