Conducting Universal Complete Mental Health Screening via Student Self-Report

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 253-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Moore ◽  
Oscar Widales-Benitez ◽  
Katherine W. Carnazzo ◽  
Eui Kyung Kim ◽  
Kathryn Moffa ◽  
...  
1997 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 232-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ricardo B. Feijó ◽  
Mauricio Saueressig ◽  
Cristiano Salazar ◽  
Márcia L.F. Chaves

PLoS ONE ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e0147267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Geibel ◽  
Kassahun Habtamu ◽  
Gebeyehu Mekonnen ◽  
Nrupa Jani ◽  
Lynnette Kay ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Moffa ◽  
Erin Dowdy ◽  
Michael J. Furlong

Considering the many positive outcomes associated with adolescents’ sense of school belonging, including psychological functioning, it is possible that including an assessment of school belonging within a complete mental health screening process could contribute to the prediction of students’ future mental health status. This exploratory study used complete mental health screening data obtained from a central California high school (N= 1,159). At Time 1 (T1) schoolwide screening was used to identify complete mental health groups by applying a dual-factor strategy and concurrently measuring students’ school belonging. One year later at Time 2 (T2), social-emotional wellbeing and internal distress were assessed. Cross-sectional T1 results indicated that there were significant differences in school belonging between students who reported low global life satisfaction and those who reported average or high global life satisfaction, regardless of reported level of psychological distress. A comparison of T1 to T2 data revealed that global life satisfaction and psychological distress were predictive of wellbeing and internal distress. However, contrary to study expectations, school belonging at T1 added little to the prediction of T2 psychological distress beyond the information already provided by the T1 dual-factor screening framework. Implications for practice and future directions are discussed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-8
Author(s):  
P. Sharma ◽  
G. Devkota

 Introduction: Screening of mental disorders and psychological distress is important in clinical as well as research setting. The objective of this study is to test the reliability of mental health screening questionnaire developed by authors and see its correlation with perceived stress scale scores. Material and Method: A self-report screening instrument was designed by the authors in consultation with experts and was tested for reliability among 162 participants from general population gathered for stress management program. The correlation of the designed scale was tested with the Perceived Stress Scale score. Results: Scale reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for the designed psychological distress scale was found to be 0.7558 which is regarded as having acceptable internal consistency. The questions of the designed scale had weak to moderate positive correlation with the score on Perceived Stress Scale. Conclusion: Despite many shortcomings of the designed scale we may be able to use it for basic screening of psychological distress and mental health problems. We recommend the validity of scale be tested in larger sample size.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth E. Marshall ◽  
Josie Milligan-Saville ◽  
Katherine Petrie ◽  
Richard A. Bryant ◽  
Philip B. Mitchell ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Mental health screening in the workplace aims to identify employees who are becoming symptomatic, in order to provide timely support and evidence-based interventions to those affected. Given the stigma associated with mental illness, accurate disclosure of mental health symptoms cannot be assumed. The present study sought to investigate factors associated with the accurate reporting of mental health symptoms amongst police officers. Methods A total of 90 serving police officers completed identical mental health screening surveys, one administered by the employer and the other anonymously by an independent organisation. Responses were then linked to compare differences in the number and severity of mental health symptoms reported on each questionnaire. Results Comparisons of matched self-report scores indicated that employees under-reported symptoms of mental health disorders when completing screening administered by their employer, with only 76.3% of symptoms declared. Under-reporting occurred regardless of gender and symptom type. Less senior staff (p = 0.05) and those with the most severe post-traumatic stress disorder and common mental disorder symptoms (p = 0.008) were significantly more likely to under-report symptoms. Conclusions Employer-administered mental health screening is not able to accurately capture all mental health symptoms amongst first responders. The fact that the severity of symptoms predicted the level of under-reporting means that simple changes to cut-off values cannot correct this problem.


2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 241-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin Dowdy ◽  
Michael J. Furlong ◽  
Karen Nylund-Gibson ◽  
Stephanie Moore ◽  
Kathryn Moffa

Contemporary mental health assessment conceptualizations focus on both well-being and distress. This study presents initial validation information for the Social Emotional Distress Survey–Secondary (SEDS-S), which was designed for school-based complete mental health screening that employs brief self-report measures of well-being and distress. The SEDS-S structure was investigated using two independent samples of U.S. high school students ( N = 3,780). Findings from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses suggested a one-factor model of distress with good model fit. Path analyses revealed significant positive relations of the SEDS-S distress factor with symptoms of anxiety and depression, and a significant negative relation with life satisfaction and strengths scores. Future research directions and use in school-based screening applications are discussed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Moore ◽  
Ashley M. Mayworm ◽  
Rachel Stein ◽  
Jill D. Sharkey ◽  
Erin Dowdy

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document