Carla M Bann1, Corette B Parker2, William A Grobman3, Marian Willinger4, Hyagriv N Simhan5, Deborah A Wing6, David M Haas7, Robert M Silver8, Samuel Parry9, George R Saade10, Ronald J Wapner11, Michal A Elovitz9, Emily S Miller12, Uma M Reddy4. 1. a Division of Statistical and Data Sciences , RTI International, Research Triangle Park , NC , USA. 2. b Biostatistics and Epidemiology Division , RTI International, Research Triangle Park , NC , USA. 3. c Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology , Northwestern University , Chicago , IL , USA. 4. d Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development , Bethesda , MD , USA. 5. e Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences , University of Pittsburgh , Pittsburgh , PA , USA. 6. f Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology , University of California at Irvine , Irvine , CA , USA. 7. g Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology , Indiana University , Indianapolis , IN , USA. 8. h Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology , University of Utah , Salt Lake City , UT , USA. 9. i Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology , University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia , PA , USA. 10. j Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology , University of Texas Medical Branch-Galveston , Galveston , TX , USA. 11. k Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology , Columbia University , New York , NY , USA. 12. l Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology , Northwestern University , Chicago , IL , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychometric properties of three measures, the perceived stress scale (PSS), pregnancy experience scale (PES), and state trait anxiety inventory (STAI), for assessing stress and anxiety during pregnancy among a large sample of nulliparous women. METHODS: The sample included 10,002 pregnant women participating in the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be (nMoM2b). Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and factorial validity with confirmatory factor analyses. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) were calculated to determine stability of PSS scales over time. Psychometric properties were examined for the overall sample, as well as subgroups based on maternal age, race/ethnicity and language. RESULTS: All three scales demonstrated good internal consistency reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the factor structures of the PSS and the PES. However, a one-factor solution of the trait-anxiety subscale from the STAI did not fit well; a two-factor solution, splitting the items into factors based on direction of item wording (positive versus negative) provided a better fit. Scores on the PSS were generally stable over time (ICC = 0.60). Subgroup analyses revealed a few items that did not perform well on Spanish versions of the scales. CONCLUSION: Overall, the scales performed well, suggesting they could be useful tools for identifying women experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety during pregnancy and allowing for the implementation of interventions to help reduce maternal stress and anxiety.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the psychometric properties of three measures, the perceived stress scale (PSS), pregnancy experience scale (PES), and state trait anxiety inventory (STAI), for assessing stress and anxiety during pregnancy among a large sample of nulliparous women. METHODS: The sample included 10,002 pregnant women participating in the Nulliparous Pregnancy Outcomes Study: Monitoring Mothers-to-Be (nMoM2b). Internal consistency reliability was assessed with Cronbach's alpha and factorial validity with confirmatory factor analyses. Intraclass correlations (ICCs) were calculated to determine stability of PSS scales over time. Psychometric properties were examined for the overall sample, as well as subgroups based on maternal age, race/ethnicity and language. RESULTS: All three scales demonstrated good internal consistency reliability. Confirmatory factor analyses supported the factor structures of the PSS and the PES. However, a one-factor solution of the trait-anxiety subscale from the STAI did not fit well; a two-factor solution, splitting the items into factors based on direction of item wording (positive versus negative) provided a better fit. Scores on the PSS were generally stable over time (ICC = 0.60). Subgroup analyses revealed a few items that did not perform well on Spanish versions of the scales. CONCLUSION: Overall, the scales performed well, suggesting they could be useful tools for identifying women experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety during pregnancy and allowing for the implementation of interventions to help reduce maternal stress and anxiety.
Authors: B R Vohr; L L Wright; A M Dusick; L Mele; J Verter; J J Steichen; N P Simon; D C Wilson; S Broyles; C R Bauer; V Delaney-Black; K A Yolton; B E Fleisher; L A Papile; M D Kaplan Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Marci Lobel; Dolores Lacey Cannella; Jennifer E Graham; Carla DeVincent; Jayne Schneider; Bruce A Meyer Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Maureen Hack; H Gerry Taylor; Dennis Drotar; Mark Schluchter; Lydia Cartar; Laura Andreias; Deanne Wilson-Costello; Nancy Klein Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-07-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anja C Huizink; Eduard J H Mulder; Pascale G Robles de Medina; Gerard H A Visser; Jan K Buitelaar Journal: Early Hum Dev Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Catherine Monk; Rachel S Webster; Rebecca B McNeil; Corette B Parker; Janet M Catov; Philip Greenland; C Noel Bairey Merz; Robert M Silver; Hyagriv N Simhan; Deborah B Ehrenthal; Judith H Chung; David M Haas; Brian M Mercer; Samuel Parry; LuAnn Polito; Uma M Reddy; George R Saade; William A Grobman Journal: Arch Womens Ment Health Date: 2019-06-29 Impact factor: 3.633
Authors: Shannon L Gillespie; Lisa M Christian; Amy R Mackos; Timiya S Nolan; Kaboni W Gondwe; Cindy M Anderson; Mark W Hall; Karen Patricia Williams; George M Slavich Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 19.227
Authors: Lauren A Gimbel; Nathan R Blue; Amanda A Allshouse; Robert M Silver; Bruce Gimbel; William A Grobman; David M Haas; Hyagriv N Simhan; Brian M Mercer; Tamera Hatfield Journal: J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med Date: 2021-11-07
Authors: Caroline-Aleksi Olsson Mägi; Anders Bjerg Bäcklund; Karin Lødrup Carlsen; Catarina Almqvist; Kai-Håkon Carlsen; Berit Granum; Guttorm Haugen; Katarina Hilde; Oda C Lødrup Carlsen; Christine Monceyron Jonassen; Eva Maria Rehbinder; Katrine D Sjøborg; Håvard Skjerven; Anne Cathrine Staff; Riyas Vettukattil; Cilla Söderhäll; Björn Nordlund Journal: ERJ Open Res Date: 2020-10-13
Authors: Patricia Anne Kinser; Leroy R Thacker; Dana Lapato; Sara Wagner; Roxann Roberson-Nay; Lisa Jobe-Shields; Ananda Amstadter; Timothy P York Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2017-12-14 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Tabea Sarah Send; Maria Gilles; Veryan Codd; Isabell Wolf; Svenja Bardtke; Fabian Streit; Jana Strohmaier; Josef Frank; Darja Schendel; Mark W Sütterlin; Matthew Denniff; Manfred Laucht; Nilesh J Samani; Michael Deuschle; Marcella Rietschel; Stephanie H Witt Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2017-04-11 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Miriam J Haviland; Yael I Nillni; Howard J Cabral; Matthew P Fox; Lauren A Wise; Heather H Burris; Michele R Hacker Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol Date: 2021-03-05 Impact factor: 3.103
Authors: Tondy Baumgartner; Surya Sruthi Bhamidipalli; David Guise; Joanne Daggy; Corette B Parker; Melissa Westermann; Samuel Parry; William A Grobman; Brian M Mercer; Hyagriv N Simhan; Robert M Silver; Ronald J Wapner; George R Saade; Uma M Reddy; David M Haas Journal: Matern Child Health J Date: 2020-08