Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health

  • 제53권6호
  • /
  • Pages.429-438
  • /
  • 2020
  • /
  • 1975-8375(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2233-4521(eISSN)
대한예방의학회 (The Korean Society for Preventive Medicine)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Public Sector Workers' Mental Health in Argentina: Comparative Psychometrics of the Perceived Stress Scale

  • Miranda, Agustin Ramiro (School of Phonoaudiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, National University of Cordoba) ;
  • Scotta, Ana Veronica (School of Phonoaudiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, National University of Cordoba) ;
  • Mendez, Ana Lucia (School of Phonoaudiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, National University of Cordoba) ;
  • Serra, Silvana Valeria (School of Phonoaudiology, Faculty of Medical Sciences, National University of Cordoba) ;
  • Soria, Elio Andres (National Scientific and Technical Research Council, CONICET, INICSA)
  • 투고 : 2020.05.26
  • 심사 : 2020.08.17
  • 발행 : 2020.11.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: Given that Argentinian public-sector workers are highly exposed to stressful conditions, and that the psychometric properties of the widely used Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) should be evaluated in different settings, this work aimed to compare the psychometric properties of the Latin American Spanish PSS-10 and PSS-4 and to identify the optimal scale for stress assessment. Methods: A sample of 535 participants was randomly divided into 2 groups to evaluate dimensionality by exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The reliability of both scales was also evaluated. Convergent validity was estimated using the Executive Complaints Questionnaire, the average variance extracted, and the composite reliability. Discriminant validity was based on the correlation with the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale and the phi-square correlation between the components. Results: The factor analyses supported bidimensionality of the PSS-10 (stress and coping), which showed a better fit than the PSS-4. Moreover, the reliability of the PSS-10 was higher, whereas the PSS-4 did not achieve adequate values of internal consistency. The PSS-10 was also correlated significantly with all validation scales, and presented proper internal convergent and divergent validity. Conclusions: The PSS-10 is a reliable and structurally valid instrument to measure perceived stress and coping in a Latin American Spanish-speaking population with high work demands, and the findings of this study expand our knowledge on the geographical and sociocultural applicability of the PSS.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Lee EH. Review of the psychometric evidence of the perceived stress scale. Asian Nurs Res (Korean Soc Nurs Sci) 2012;6(4):121-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anr.2012.08.004
  2. Chiu YH, Lu FJ, Lin JH, Nien CL, Hsu YW, Liu HY. Psychometric properties of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS): measurement invariance between athletes and non-athletes and construct validity. PeerJ 2016;4:e2790. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2790
  3. Schliep KC, Mumford SL, Vladutiu CJ, Ahrens KA, Perkins NJ, Sjaarda LA, et al. Perceived stress, reproductive hormones, and ovulatory function: a prospective cohort study. Epidemiology 2015;26(2):177-184. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000238
  4. Palagini L, Bruno RM, Cheng P, Mauri M, Taddei S, Ghiadoni L, et al. Relationship between insomnia symptoms, perceived stress and coping strategies in subjects with arterial hypertension: psychological factors may play a modulating role. Sleep Med 2016;19:108-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2015.09.026
  5. Miranda AR, Rivadero L, Bruera JA, Villarreal V, Bernio LY, de los Angeles Baydas L, et al. Examining the relationship between engagement and perceived stress-related cognitive complaints in the Argentinian working population. Eur J Psychol 2020;16(1):12-31. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v16i1.1832
  6. Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. A global measure of perceived stress. J Health Soc Behav 1983;24(4):385-396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404
  7. Cohen S, Williamson G. Perceived stress in a probability sample of the United States. In: Spacapan S, Oskamp S, editors. The social psychology of health: 4th Claremont symposium on applied social psychology. Newbury Park: Sage; 1988, p. 31-67.
  8. Agranovich AV, Puente AE. Do Russian and American normal adults perform similarly on neuropsychological tests? Preliminary findings on the relationship between culture and test performance. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2007;22(3):273-282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2007.01.003
  9. Campo-Arias A, Bustos-Leiton GJ, Romero-Chaparro A. Internal consistency and dimensionality of the perceived stress scale (PSS-10 and PSS-14) in a sample of female university students in Bogota, Colombia. Aquichan 2009;9(3):271-280 (Spanish).
  10. Hanel PH, Vione KC. Do student samples provide an accurate estimate of the general public? PLoS One 2016;11(12):e0168354. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168354
  11. Cardenas Rodriguez M, Mendez Hinojosa LM, Gonzalez Ramirez MT. Performance, stress, burnout and personal variables of university teachers. Educere 2014;18(60):289-302 (Spanish).
  12. Purcell SR, Kutash M, Cobb S. The relationship between nurses' stress and nurse staffing factors in a hospital setting. J Nurs Manag 2011;19(6):714-720. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01262.x
  13. West C, Fekedulegn D, Andrew M, Burchfiel CM, Harlow S, Bingham CR, et al. On-duty nonfatal injury that lead to work absences among police officers and level of perceived stress. J Occup Environ Med 2017;59(11):1084-1088. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001137
  14. Houtman I, Jettinghof K, Cedillo L. Raising awareness of stress at work in developing countries: advice to employers and worker representatives; 2007 [cited 2020 Apr 9]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42956.
  15. Patlan-Perez J. Effect of psychosocial risks on job satisfaction and psychosomatic disorders in workers of the public sector. RECAI 2019;8(21):20-47 (Spanish). https://doi.org/10.36677/recai.v8i21.11591
  16. Vammen MA, Mikkelsen S, Forman JL, Hansen AM, Bonde JP, Grynderup MB, et al. Emotional demands and exhaustion: cross-sectional and longitudinal associations in a cohort of Danish public sector employees. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2019;92(5):639-650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-018-01398-w
  17. VanVoorhis CW, Morgan BL. Understanding power and rules of thumb for determining sample sizes. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2007;3(2):43-50. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043
  18. Miranda AR, Rivadero L, Serra SV, Soria EA. Multidomain selfreport assessment of fronto-executive complaints in Spanishspeaking adults. Psychol Neurosci 2019;13(3):357-374.
  19. Spontón C, Medrano LA, Maffei L, Spontón M, Castellano E. Validation of the engagement questionnaire UWES for the population of workers of Córdoba, Argentina. Liber 2012;18(2):147-154 (Spanish).
  20. Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, Gonzalez-Roma V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud 2002;3(1):71-92. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015630930326
  21. Ng SM. Validation of the 10-item Chinese perceived stress scale in elderly service workers: one-factor versus two-factor structure. BMC Psychol 2013;1(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2050-7283-1-9
  22. Lloret-Segura S, Ferreres-Traver A, Hernandez-Baeza A, TomasMarco I. Exploratory item factor analysis: a practical guide revised and updated. An Psicol 2014;30(3):1151-1169.
  23. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education; 2014, p. 627-784.
  24. Yong AG, Pearce S. A beginner's guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 2013;9(2):79-94. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.09.2.p079
  25. Soh YX, Razak NK, Cheng LJ, Lau Y. Determinants of childbirth self-efficacy among multi-ethnic pregnant women in Singapore: a structural equation modelling approach. Midwifery 2020;87:102716. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2020.102716
  26. Wu SM, Amtmann D. Psychometric evaluation of the perceived stress scale in multiple sclerosis. Int Sch Res Notices 2013;2013:608356.
  27. Sun R, Rohay JM, Sereika SM, Zheng Y, Yu Y, Burke LE. Psychometric evaluation of the barriers to healthy eating scale: results from four independent weight loss studies. Obesity (Silver Spring) 2019;27(5):700-706. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.22414
  28. Duckworth AL, Kern ML. A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. J Res Pers 2011;45(3):259-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.004
  29. Acuna I, Michelini Y, Guzman JI, Godoy JC. Assessment of convergent and discriminant validity in computerized decisionmaking tests. Aval Psicol 2017;16(3):375-383 (Spanish). https://doi.org/10.15689/ap.2017.1603.12952
  30. Zarantonello L, Pauwels-Delassus V. The handbook of brand management scales. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2015, p. 29-30.
  31. Ezzati A, Jiang J, Katz MJ, Sliwinski MJ, Zimmerman ME, Lipton RB. Validation of the Perceived Stress Scale in a community sample of older adults. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 2014;29(6):645-652. https://doi.org/10.1002/gps.4049
  32. Lee B, Jeong HI. Construct validity of the perceived stress scale (PSS-10) in a sample of early childhood teacher candidates. Psychiatr Clin Psychopharmacol 2019;29(1):76-82. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750573.2019.1565693
  33. Mondo M, Sechi C, Cabras C. Psychometric evaluation of three versions of the Italian Perceived Stress Scale. Curr Psychol 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-0132-8.
  34. Reyna C, Mola DJ, Correa PS. Perceived Stress Scale: psychometric analysis from CTT and IRT. Anxiety Stress 2019;25(2):138-147 (Spanish).
  35. Reis RS, Hino AA, Anez CR. Perceived stress scale: reliability and validity study in Brazil. J Health Psychol 2010;15(1):107-114. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105309346343
  36. Denovan A, Dagnall N, Dhingra K, Grogan S. Evaluating the Perceived Stress Scale among UK university students: implications for stress measurement and management. Stud High Educ 2019;44(1):120-133. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1340445
  37. Cruz-Fierro N, Gonzalez-Ramirez MT, Vanegas-Farfano MT. Structural model to explain bruxism from the transactional stress theory. Anxiety Stress 2018;24(2-3):53-59 (Spanish).
  38. Miranda AR, Franchetto Sierra J, Martinez Roulet A, Rivadero L, Serra SV, Soria EA. Age, education and gender effects on Wisconsin card sorting test: standardization, reliability and validity in healthy Argentinian adults. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn 2019;27(6):807-825.
  39. Reis D, Lehr D, Heber E, Ebert DD. The German version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10): evaluation of dimensionality, validity, and measurement invariance with exploratory and confirmatory bifactor modeling. assessment. 2019;26(7):1246-1259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117715731
  40. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981;18(1):39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104