Norm values and psychometric properties of the short version of the Trier Inventory for Chronic Stress (TICS) in a representative German sample


Autoři: Katja Petrowski aff001;  Sören Kliem aff003;  Cornelia Albani aff004;  Andreas Hinz aff004;  Elmar Brähler aff004
Působiště autorů: Clinic of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Medicine, Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany aff001;  Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology; Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany aff002;  Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony, Hannover, Germany aff003;  Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany aff004;  Clinic of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany aff005
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222277

Souhrn

The Trier Inventory for Chronic Stress (TICS), consisting of 57 items, is an instrument for measuring chronic stress in nine areas. There is also a short form (SSCS) of the TICS consisting of 12 items. However, this 12-item short form does not include all nine areas of the theoretical model and the long version. Therefore, a short version including all nine scales/areas was investigated. The TICS was taken by a sample of N = 2,473 respondents from the general population, aged 14 to 99, selected by random-route sampling. Confirmatory factor analyses applying robust maximum likelihood estimations (MLM) tested the model fit. The one-factor-model proposed by the original authors was tested, and the SSCS showed an unacceptable model fit. For the development of an economical short version of the TICS, including items of the nine areas of chronic stress, nine items based on the alphamax algorithm were selected. The one-factor-model of this new short version of the TICS of nine items provided a good fit for the latent construct and showed good reliability (α = .88). A new and reliable short version of the TICS consisting of only 9 items representing the 9 scales/areas for the assessment of chronic stress was identified to possess a good model fit and good reliability.

Klíčová slova:

Factor analysis – German people – Germany – Psychological stress – Questionnaires – Research validity – Skewness – Social research


Zdroje

1. Lohmann-Haislah A. Stressreport Deutschland 2012. Psychische Anforderungen, Ressourcen und Befinden. Berlin: Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin; 2012.

2. Becker P, Schulz P, Schlotz W. Persönlichkeit, chronischer Stress und körperliche Gesundheit. Z Gesundheitspsychol. 2004. 12: 11–23. doi: 10.1026/0–9438149.12.1.11

3. Cohen S, Kessler RC, Underwood Gordon L. Measuring stress. A guide for health and social scientists. New York: Oxford; 1995.

4. Cohen S, Janicki-Deverts D, Miller GE. Psychological stress and disease. JAMA. 2007. 298(14): 1685–1687. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.14.1685 17925521

5. Schulz P, Hellhammer J, Schlotz W. Arbeitsstress, sozialer Stress und Schlafqualität. Z Gesundheitspsychol. 2003. 11 (1): 1–9. doi: 10.1026//0943814-9.11.1.1

6. Chandola T, Brunner E, Marmot M. Chronic stress at work and the metabolic syndrome: prospective study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 2006. 332: 521. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38693.435301.80 16428252

7. Roohafza H, Talaei M, Sadeghi M, Mackie M, Sarafzadegan N. Association between acute and chronic life events on acute coronary syndrome: a case-control study. J Cardiovasc Nurs. 2010. 25(5): E1—E7. doi: 10.1097/JCN.0b013e3181d81799 20714227

8. Ehrstrom S, Kornfeld D, Rylander E, Bohm-Starke N. Chronic stress in women with localised provoked vulvodynia. J Psychosom Obstet Gynecol. 2009. 30: 73–79. doi: 10.1080/01674820802604359 19308786

9. Vedhara K, Irwin M. Human Psychoneuroimmunology. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 2005.

10. Jackson JS, Knight KM, Rafferty JA. Race and unhealthy behaviors: chronic stress, the HPA axis, and physical and mental health disparities over the life course. Am J Public Health. 2010. 105(5): 933–939. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.143446 19846689

11. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A Global Measure of Perceived Stress. J Health Soc Behav. 1983. 24(4): 385–96. 6668417

12. Schlotz W, Yim IS, Zoccola PM, Jansen L, Schulz P. The perceived stress reactivity scale: Measurement invariance, stability, and validity in three countries. Psychol Assessment. 2011. 23(1): 80–94. doi: 10.1037/a0021148 21280954

13. Levenstein S, Prantera C, Varvo V, Scribano ML, Berto E, Luzi C, Andreoli A. Development of the perceived stress questionnaire: A new tool for psychosomatic research. J Psychosom Res. 1993. 37(1): 19–32. doi: 10.1016/0022-3999(93)90120-5 8421257

14. Fliege H, Rose M, Arck P, Walter O, Kocalevent RD, Weber C, Klapp B. The Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ) Reconsidered: Validation and Reference Values From Different Clinical and Healthy Adult Samples. Psychosom Med. 2005. 67(1): 78–88. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000151491.80178.78 15673628

15. Cooper CL, Sloan SJ, Williams S. Occupational Stress Indicator data supplement. Windsor, UK: NFER-Nelson; 1988.

16. Karasek R, Brisson C, Kawakami N, Houtman I, Bongers P, Amick B. The Job Content Questionnaire (JCQ): An instrument for internationally comparative assessments of psychosocial job characteristics. J Occup Health Psychol. 1998. 3(4): 322–55. doi: 10.1037//1076-8998.3.4.322 9805280

17. Moos RH, Moos B. S. Family environment scale manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1981.

18. Juster RP, McEwen BS, Lupien SJ. Allostatic load biomarkers of chronic stress and impact on health and cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010. 35(1): 2–16. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.10.002 19822172

19. Schulz P, Schlotz W, & Becker P. Trierer Inventar zum chronischen Stress (TICS). Göttingen: Hogrefe; 2004.

20. Becker P. Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung. In: Schwarzer R, editor. Gesundheitspsychologie. Ein Lehrbuch. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1997. p. 517–534.

21. Petrowski K, Brähler E, Paul S, Albani C. Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Trier inventory for chronic stress (TICS) in a cross-sectional, representative German survey. BMC Med. 2012. 4: 12–42. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-42 22463771

22. Beck AT, Steer RA, Brown GK. Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory-II. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1996.

23. McGonagle KA, Kessler RC. Chronic stress, acute stress, and depressive symptoms. Am J Community Psychol. 1990. 18 (5): 681–706. doi: 10.1007/bf00931237 2075897

24. Fried EI, Nesse R, Guille C, Sen S. The differential influence of life stress on individual symptoms of depression. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2015. 131 (6): 465–471. doi: 10.1111/acps.12395 25650176

25. Békés V, Dunkley DM, Taylor G, Zuroff DC, Lewkowski M, Elizabeth Foley J,… Westreich R. Chronic Stress and Attenuated Improvement in Depression Over 1 Year: The Moderating Role of Perfectionism. Behav Ther. 2015. 46 (4): 478–492. doi: 10.1016/j.beth.2015.02.003 26163712

26. Smith GT, McCarthy DM, Anderson KG. On the sins of short-form development. Psychol Assess. 2000. 12 (1): 102–11. doi: 10.1037//1040-3590.12.1.102 10752369

27. Hayes AF. A computational tool for survey shortening applicable to composite attitude, opinion, and personality measurement scales. Presentation at the meeting of the Midwestern Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago; 2005.

28. Kliem S, Mossle T, Zenger M, Strauss B, Brahler E, Hilbert A. The eating disorder examination-questionnaire 8: A brief measure of eating disorder psychopathology (EDE-Q8). Int J Eat Disord. 2016. 49(6): 613–616. doi: 10.1002/eat.22487 26711183

29. Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP. New sampling designs and the quality of data. In: Ferligoj A, Mrvar A, editors. Developments in applied statistics. Ljubljana: FDV; 2003. p. 205–217.

30. Arbeitsgemeinschaft ADM-Stichproben, Bureau Wendt. Das ADM-Stichprobensystem. In: Gabler S, Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik JHP, Krebs D, editors. Gewichtung in der Umfragepraxis [Samples in surveypraxis]. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag; 1994. p. 188–202.

31. Satorra A, Bentler PM. A scaled difference chi- square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika. 2001. 66: 507–514.

32. Brown JB, Churchill GA, Peter JP. Improving the measurement of service quality. J Retailing. 1993. 69 (1): 127–139. doi: 10.1016/S0022-4359(05)80006-5

33. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis. Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999. 6: 1–55.

34. Meredith W, Teresi JA. An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Med Care. 2006. 44(3): 569–577. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245438.73837.89 17060838

35. Millsap RE, Kwok OM. Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychol Methods. 2004. 9(1): 93–115. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.93 15053721

36. Chen FF. Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2007. 14(3): 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834

37. Rosseel Y. An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Soft. 2012. 48(2): 1. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02

38. Jorgensen TD, Pornprasertmanit S, Schoemann AM, Rosseel Y, Miller P, Quick C, Garnier-Villarreal M. SemTools: Useful tools for structural equation modeling. (2018) R package version 0.5–1.

39. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press; 2006.

40. Recklitis CJ, Yap L, Noam GG. Development of a short form of the adolescent version of the Defense Mechanisms Inventory. J Pers Assess. 1995. 64(2): 360–370. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6402_14 7722860

41. Whitley RJ, Hromadka TV. Evaluating Uncertainty in Design Storm Runoff Predictions. Water Resour Res. 1991. 28(4): 1145–1153. doi: 10.1029/91WR01626

42. Haynes SN, Richard DCS, Kubany ES. Content Validity in Psychological Assessment: A Functional Approach to Concepts and Methods. Psychol Assess. 1995. 7(3): 238–247.

43. Steinborn M. B., Langner R., Flehmig H. C., & Huestegge L. Methodology of performance scoring in the d2 sustained-attention test: Cumulative-reliability functions and practical guidelines. Psychological Assessment, 2018. 30(3): 339–357. doi: 10.1037/pas0000482 28406669


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11