Skip to main content
    Distress · 6 items · 0–24 · Kessler RC, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychol Med. 2002.

    Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6): Scoring, Cutoffs & Interpretation

    Six-item self-report screen for non-specific psychological distress.

    K60 / 6

    During the past 30 days, about how often did you feel ...

    Scored locally - nothing leaves this page

    01nervous?
    02hopeless?
    03restless or fidgety?
    04so depressed that nothing could cheer you up?
    05that everything was an effort?
    06worthless?
    0 of 60 / 24

    02 - The clinician's brief

    Last reviewed: · Reviewed by Lotte Kjær Svalberg

    01 - What it measures

    What this scale measures.

    The K6 measures non-specific psychological distress over the past 30 days. Its six items ask how often the respondent felt nervous, hopeless, restless or fidgety, so depressed that nothing could cheer them up, that everything was an effort, and worthless. Each item is rated on a five-point frequency scale from "none of the time" (0) to "all of the time" (4), giving a total of 0–24. Rather than mapping onto one diagnosis, the K6 captures the shared emotional core that runs across mood and anxiety disorders.

    Because it is short, free and deliberately non-specific, the K6 is one of the most widely used population screens for mental illness in the world. It sits in major government health surveys - including the US National Health Interview Survey and the WHO World Mental Health surveys - and doubles in clinics as a rapid triage measure when the question is "is this person in significant distress?" rather than "which disorder is this?".

    02 - Origin & purpose

    Where it comes from.

    The K6 and its ten-item sibling the K10 were developed by Ronald Kessler and colleagues at Harvard for the US National Health Interview Survey, published in Psychological Medicine in 2002. Using item response theory, the team screened a large pool of candidate items and retained the six that discriminated most precisely in the clinical range of the distress continuum - the region that matters when deciding who needs assessment.

    A companion 2003 paper in Archives of General Psychiatry calibrated the K6 as a screen for serious mental illness (SMI) in the general population, establishing the ≥13 cutoff still used by US federal surveys to estimate SMI prevalence. The K6 was designed for population surveillance first, and its brevity later made it a natural fit for waiting-room screening and repeated monitoring.

    03 - Scoring & cutoffs

    How scoring works.

    Sum the six items (each 0–4) for a total of 0–24. Scores of 13 or above indicate probable serious psychological distress and a high likelihood of meeting criteria for a serious mental illness (Kessler et al., 2003). Prochaska and colleagues (2012) validated a lower threshold: scores of 5–12 mark moderate mental distress associated with genuine treatment need, so a K6 of 5 or more merits clinical attention even though it falls below the SMI cutoff. Scores of 0–4 suggest low distress. Note that some countries (notably Australia) score each item 1–5, giving a 6–30 range - check which convention a report uses before comparing numbers.

    Score
    Severity
    Interpretation
    0–4
    Low or no distress
    Little or no psychological distress reported.
    5–12
    Moderate distress
    Moderate psychological distress; consider further assessment.
    13–24
    Serious distress
    High likelihood of a serious mental illness; clinical assessment indicated.

    04 - Validation evidence

    How well it performs.

    Internal consistency is high across populations, with Cronbach's alpha typically reported between 0.89 and 0.93. Against structured diagnostic interviews, validation studies report sensitivity around 0.83 and specificity around 0.79 at the 12/13 threshold, with a negative predictive value above 0.90 - good performance for a six-item screen. The 2012 California Health Interview Survey study (n = 50,880) validated the moderate-distress band, and the K6's inclusion in the WHO World Mental Health surveys has produced validation data across dozens of countries and languages.

    0.89-0.93
    CRONBACH'S α ACROSS SAMPLES
    0.83 / 0.79
    SENSITIVITY / SPECIFICITY AT ≥13
    <2 min
    6 ITEMS, RANGE 0–24
    n = 50,880
    MODERATE BAND 5–12 VALIDATED (PROCHASKA 2012)

    05 - How it compares

    How it compares to the alternatives.

    Instrument
    Items
    Time
    When to reach for it
    K6
    6
    ~1 min
    Six-item general distress screen; free, widely translated, and the basis of serious-distress estimates in national surveys.
    10
    ~3 min
    Reach for it when you want finer gradation of distress severity; the K6 loses little precision at a third less length.
    4
    ~1 min
    Ultra-brief combined depression/anxiety screen; reach for it when even the K6 is too long, accepting disorder-specific rather than general distress framing.
    12
    ~3 min
    Long-established general distress measure; licensed, so the K6 is the free alternative.
    5
    ~1 min
    Positively worded wellbeing index; reach for it when you want to track wellbeing rather than distress.
    9
    ~2 min
    Disorder-specific depression severity measure; reach for it once the K6 has flagged distress and you need to characterise it.
    7
    ~2 min
    Disorder-specific anxiety severity measure; pair with the PHQ-9 to characterise distress the K6 has flagged.

    06 - When to use it

    Right tool, wrong tool.

    Reach for it when

    • -Population and service-level mental health surveillance.
    • -Rapid waiting-room triage where any significant distress should prompt fuller assessment.
    • -Epidemiological comparison against national norms.
    • -Settings needing a free, translation-rich instrument.
    • -Repeated brief monitoring of general distress.

    Reach for something else when

    • -Diagnosing any specific disorder - it cannot distinguish depression from anxiety from other conditions.
    • -Tracking response to disorder-specific treatment (use PHQ-9, GAD-7 or similar).
    • -Assessing psychosis, mania, substance use or suicidality, none of which it covers.
    • -Children; the K6 is validated for adults.

    07 - Confidence & precision

    Reading the score with care.

    No standard error of measurement or minimal clinically important difference is established for the K6 in routine clinical use, so interpret score changes cautiously: small shifts of a point or two are within plausible measurement noise, and movement across the 5 and 13 thresholds matters more than the raw change. The scale is most precise in the upper (clinical) range of distress, where its items were selected to discriminate - floor effects make it less informative for distinguishing degrees of good mental health.

    08 - Limitations

    What it cannot tell you.

    It is a screen, not a diagnostic instrument; a high score says "assess this person", not what they have. The 30-day window can miss episodic conditions. It does not cover suicidality, psychosis, mania or substance use. The dual scoring conventions (0–24 vs 6–30) cause real-world confusion when comparing reports. And because the items were tuned to the clinical range, it discriminates poorly among people with low distress.

    Common questions from clinicians

    FAQ

    References

    Source literature.

    1. [1]Kessler RC, Andrews G, Colpe LJ, et al. Short screening scales to monitor population prevalences and trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine. 2002;32(6):959-976 (2002)
    2. [2]Kessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, et al. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2003;60(2):184-189 (2003)
    3. [3]Prochaska JJ, Sung HY, Max W, Shi Y, Ong M Validity study of the K6 scale as a measure of moderate mental distress based on mental health treatment need and utilization. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2012;21(2):88-97 (2012)
    4. [4]Furukawa TA, Kessler RC, Slade T, Andrews G The performance of the K6 and K10 screening scales for psychological distress in the Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Well-Being. Psychological Medicine. 2003;33(2):357-362 (PMID: 12622315) (2003)
    5. [5]Kim G, DeCoster J, Chiriboga DA, et al. Validation of the K6/K10 scales of psychological distress and their optimal cutoff scores for older Koreans (2016)

    Scale without compromise

    See how Aisel removes friction where it costs most. A 20-minute walkthrough tailored to your clinic.