BACKGROUND: Practical limitations in epidemiologic research may necessitate use of only a few questions for assessing the complex phenomenon called "stress." The objective of this study was to evaluate the measurement characteristics of 2 single-item measures on the amount of stress and the ability to handle stress. METHODS: We selected 218 adults age 50 to 76 years living in western Washington state from a large prospective cohort study of lifestyle factors and cancer risk to evaluate the 3-month test-retest reliability and intermethod reliability of the stress questions. To assess the latter, we compared 2 single-item measures on stress with 3 more fully validated multi-item instruments on perceived stress, daily hassles, and life events, which assessed the same underlying constructs as the single-item measures. RESULTS: The test-retest reliabilities for the single-item stress measures were good (kappa and intraclass correlations between 0.66 and 0.74). The intermethod reliabilities comparing the 2 single-item stress measures with 3 multi-item instruments were moderate (r = 0.31-0.46) and comparable to correlations observed among the 3 multi-item instruments (r = 0.25-0.47). CONCLUSIONS: The 2 single-item stress measures are reliable at measuring stress with validity similar to longer questionnaires. Single-item measures offer a practical instrument for assessing stress in large prospective epidemiologic studies that lack space for longer instruments.
BACKGROUND: Practical limitations in epidemiologic research may necessitate use of only a few questions for assessing the complex phenomenon called "stress." The objective of this study was to evaluate the measurement characteristics of 2 single-item measures on the amount of stress and the ability to handle stress. METHODS: We selected 218 adults age 50 to 76 years living in western Washington state from a large prospective cohort study of lifestyle factors and cancer risk to evaluate the 3-month test-retest reliability and intermethod reliability of the stress questions. To assess the latter, we compared 2 single-item measures on stress with 3 more fully validated multi-item instruments on perceived stress, daily hassles, and life events, which assessed the same underlying constructs as the single-item measures. RESULTS: The test-retest reliabilities for the single-item stress measures were good (kappa and intraclass correlations between 0.66 and 0.74). The intermethod reliabilities comparing the 2 single-item stress measures with 3 multi-item instruments were moderate (r = 0.31-0.46) and comparable to correlations observed among the 3 multi-item instruments (r = 0.25-0.47). CONCLUSIONS: The 2 single-item stress measures are reliable at measuring stress with validity similar to longer questionnaires. Single-item measures offer a practical instrument for assessing stress in large prospective epidemiologic studies that lack space for longer instruments.
Authors: Heather L Ramey; Michael A Busseri; Nishad Khanna; Youth Net Hamilton; Youth Net Réseau Ado Ottawa; Linda Rose-Krasnor Journal: J Youth Adolesc Date: 2010-03
Authors: Hermann Nabi; Mika Kivimäki; G David Batty; Martin J Shipley; Annie Britton; Eric J Brunner; Jussi Vahtera; Cédric Lemogne; Alexis Elbaz; Archana Singh-Manoux Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-06-26 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Elizabeth P Parks; Shiriki Kumanyika; Reneé H Moore; Nicolas Stettler; Brian H Wrotniak; Anne Kazak Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-10-22 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Kathy Padkapayeva; Mahée Gilbert-Ouimet; Amber Bielecky; Selahadin Ibrahim; Cameron Mustard; Chantal Brisson; Peter Smith Journal: Ann Work Expo Health Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 2.179
Authors: Katherine B Lee; Sanjeev N Vaishnavi; Steven K M Lau; Dorothy A Andriole; Donna B Jeffe Journal: J Natl Med Assoc Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 1.798